linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RT 1/2 v2] x86: Do not disable preemption in int3 on 32bit

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4F227026.3000508@hitachi.com>
Date:	Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:36:38 +0900
From:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Carsten Emde <C.Emde@...dl.org>,
	John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
	Luis Goncalves <lgoncalv@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT 1/2 v2] x86: Do not disable preemption in int3 on 32bit

(2012/01/26 23:21), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 22:59 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> 
>> Better. If the functions are only for signaling, how
>> about using the "signal" in name? :)
>>
>> conditional_sti/cli_for_signal()
> 
> I don't think they are only for signals. The conditional_sti/cli is for
> all callers of do_trap(). But those callers that run on an IST stack use
> the preempt_conditional_sti/cli() code. Perhaps we should call it:
> 
> conditional_sti/cli_ist() ?
> 
> Actually, I think this is the best name. The "preempt_" one, didn't give
> any annotation about why it was disabling preemption. It was done
> because the stack is on the IST and we can not schedule out. Thus, if we
> add the "_ist()" to it, not only does it annotate why this call is
> special, but also allows x86_32, which does not have an IST, not to have
> to disable preemption.

I agree with your opinion :)

Thanks,

-- 
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com
--
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/