| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20141119192928.GL12538@two.firstfloor.org> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 20:29:28 +0100 From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] sched, x86: Check that we're on the right stack in schedule and __might_sleep On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:40:10AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote: > > On x86, sleeping while on an IST or irq stack has a surprisingly > > good chance of working, but it can also fail dramatically. Add an > > arch hook to allow schedule and __might_sleep to catch sleeping on > > the wrong stack. > > Why doesn't the normal in_interrupt() test catch this? The exception handlers which use the IST stacks don't necessarily set irq count. Maybe they should. -Andi -- ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only. -- 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