linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.17-rc4 v5 2/6] arm: fiq: Replace default FIQ handler

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: <5414328B.6010307@linaro.org>
Date:	Sat, 13 Sep 2014 13:03:23 +0100
From:	Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	patches@...aro.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.17-rc4 v5 2/6] arm: fiq: Replace default FIQ handler

On 12/09/14 18:14, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:31:14PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
>> This patch introduces a new default FIQ handler that is structured in a
>> similar way to the existing ARM exception handler and result in the FIQ
>> being handled by C code running on the SVC stack (despite this code run
>> in the FIQ handler is subject to severe limitations with respect to
>> locking making normal interaction with the kernel impossible).
>>
>> This default handler allows concepts that on x86 would be handled using
>> NMIs to be realized on ARM.
> 
> Okay, lastly... I sent you my version of this change, which contained
> the changes I've detailed in the previous three emails, which are absent
> from your version.
> 
> However, you've taken on board the "trace" thing to svc_entry, and
> renamed it to "call_trace".
> 
> Now if I add this to usr_entry, "call_trace" doesn't make any sense,
> nor does the .if/.endif placement because it's not just trace_hardirqs_off
> which needs to be disabled there, but also ct_user_exit as well.
> 
> I'm beginning to wonder why I tried to be nice here... it would've been
> a lot faster for me to take your patch, make my own changes and commit
> that instead.

I did not do a side by side diff of your FYI patch with my current code
and hence overlooked all these changes.

Sorry. I should have done that.

--
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/