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  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:	Thu, 17 Jul 2014 08:48:51 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
CC:	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86-64, espfix: consider IRQs are off when initializing

On 07/17/2014 08:13 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> When going through our initialization code (init_espfix_ap() ) we need to
> keep in mind IRQs are off, and we need to handle it appropriately:
> 
>  - Do not allocate with __GFP_FS.
>  - No point in using a mutex.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>

I don't think this is safe.  The whole point was that if we do
GFP_ATOMIC we have to accept failure, and if we have a spin lock then
sleeping is not permitted.  It is unclear to me is sleeping is safe in
this context even so, so we may still have a problem, but calling
__get_free_page(GFP_ATOMIC) and then unconditionally use the results is
not right.

	-hpa

--
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