linux-kernel - Re: kGraft to -next [was: 00/21 kGraft]

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: <20140702133053.GB20071@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Wed, 2 Jul 2014 09:30:53 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	mingo@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, andi@...stfloor.org,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, pavel@....cz, jirislaby@...il.com,
	Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>, Michael Matz <matz@...e.de>
Subject: Re: kGraft to -next [was: 00/21 kGraft]

Hello,

On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 03:01:16PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>  static inline bool try_to_freeze(void)
>  {
> +       kgr_task_safe(current);
> +
>         if (!(current->flags & PF_NOFREEZE))
>                 debug_check_no_locks_held();
>         return try_to_freeze_unsafe();

Heh, I'm totally confused now.  Why is this correct?  What guarantees
that context is not carried across try_to_freeze()?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/