linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH?] x86: reimplement ___preempt

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: <20140804171814.GU19379@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Mon, 4 Aug 2014 19:18:14 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH?] x86: reimplement ___preempt_schedule*() using THUNK
 helpers

On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 07:05:19PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Hmm. This part looks fine, but with or without this patch this all is
> suboptimal, we do not need SAVE_ALL unless I missed something. Can't we
> simply kill preempt.S ?
> 
> Peter, what do you think?

HPA right, not me? I'm never sure on these details, if hpa thinks its
fine, I'm good.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped