linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] percpu: Add preemption checks to __this

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: <20131016153603.GZ10651@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:36:03 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, akpm@...uxfoundation.org,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] percpu: Add preemption checks to __this_cpu ops

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 03:09:13PM +0000, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > So I didn't understand what was wrong with:
> >
> > #define __this_cpu_read(pcp) \
> > 	(__this_cpu_preempt_check("read"), raw_this_cpu_read(pcp))
> >
> > And idem for all others. This is 1) shorter to write; and 2) makes it
> > blindingly obvious that the implementations are actually the same.
> 
> Nothing wrong with that. It just increases the scope of this patch to
> require modifications to arch code and I already have trouble enough
> following through on all the issues that were raised so far.
> 

But non of your raw ops touch arch code... /me confused.
--
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/