| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 10:38:12 +0000 From: "Skidanov, Alexey" <Alexey.Skidanov@....com> To: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> CC: "Gabbay, Oded" <Oded.Gabbay@....com> Subject: CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT Hello, I found that preempt_enable() and preempt_disable() macros are defined differently depending on CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT: - They increment per CPU preemption counter, if CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT defined - They do nothing (just call barrier), if not. I have it undefined in my source tree. The questions are: 1. What is the purpose of CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT define and how I can define it? 2. In the previous kernel versions, spin_lock() and spin_unlock() call preempt_enable() and preempt_disable() respectively, ensuring that the current task will not be preempted by any other task while lock is held. Is this still ensured with these macros defined as "do nothing" ? Thanks Alexey -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists