linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Introduce checks for preemptable code for this_cpu

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:15:52 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Introduce checks for preemptable code for
 this_cpu_read/write()

On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 19:09 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 12:56 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > random_cpu_*()    // Thomas's idea
> 
> I like this one best..

I like it too, but not really the most appropriate.

> 
> But you forgot do deal with the irqsafe_cpu() crap, that's the same
> brainfart as this_cpu() but more expensive because it frobs IRQ state.

But irqsafe_cpu_*() doesn't really have any real meaning to me. That is
something when I see it, I go and read the comments about it. It doesn't
contain "this_cpu" which is something that seems to explain what it is,
even though the obvious is not what it is.

-- Steve


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/