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: <20131016125238.5f970fd5@gandalf.local.home>
Date:	Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:52:38 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	akpm@...uxfoundation.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, 16 Oct 2013 18:25:37 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
 
> But yes, the way its set-up an arch could indeed provide __this_cup_$op
> itself -- without providing the _$n variants; in which case the
> raw_cpu_$op provided by you is broken.
> 
> Can't we have a 'simple' coccinelle script rename the entire __this_cpu*
> implementation over to raw_cpu* and then provide generic __this_cpu* ->
> raw_cpu maps?
> 

Perhaps we should match the way spinlocks are.


this_cpu*() be the normal use.

raw_this_cpu() could perhaps not do the checks?

arch_this_cpu() be the architecture specific version of this_cpu*


-- Steve
--
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/