linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] lockdep: check that no locks held at freeze time

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: <CA+55aFzVNwCJhvp4f0EcHK3Vk1ZVKY0fAeu-6FdjhCFiafTAPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 6 May 2013 07:33:28 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Ben Chan <benchan@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] lockdep: check that no locks held at freeze time

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
>
> Doesn't i386 have all the funny per-cpu stuff too? So the only reason it still
> does the fugly stack based thing is because nobody could be arsed to do the
> work of converting it.

Umm. That "fugly stack-based" thing is better than the per-cpu crap.

The percpu stuff implies a memory load. The stack based thing gets
thread_info with pure register accesses. Much better.

For "current()" the per-cpu thing may be better, but if you actually
need the thread-info (not the case here, but in other places), the
stack masking is superior when it works (ie when you don't have
multi-stack issues due to irq's etc)

                Linus
--
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/