linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/13] x86: Move cond resched for copy_{from,to}

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:	Sat, 10 Aug 2013 15:05:44 -0400
From:	Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/13] x86: Move cond resched for copy_{from,to}_user
 into low level code 64bit

On Sat, 10 August 2013 20:23:09 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> 
> Sounds like the debug aspect and the preemption point addition need
> to be sorf-of split into two different functions/macros and each used
> separately.
> 
> Something like keep the current might_sleep and have debug_sleep or
> similar which does only __might_sleep without the resched...

I would argue for using "might_sleep" for the debug variant.  Before
reading this thread I wasn't even aware of the non-debug aspect.
After all, might_sleep naturally reads like some assertion.
"might_preempt" for the non-debug version?  "cond_preempt"?

Jörn

--
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it.
-- Aristotle
--
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/