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]

Message-ID: <26045.1316557979@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date:	Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:32:59 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Introduce checks for preemptable code for this_cpu_read/write()

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:08:56 CDT, Christoph Lameter said:

> That is obviously a use case in which this_cpu_xx ops could not be used
> since we must stay on the same cpu.

Wow.  I don't think I've ever seen a single sentence scream quite so much
"totally broken API" in as few words.


Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped