linux-kernel - RE: [RFC 0/2] Reenable might_sleep() checks for might

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]

Date:	Thu, 27 Nov 2014 15:37:28 +0000
From:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:	'David Hildenbrand' <dahi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:	"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Christian Borntraeger" <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
	"paulus@...ba.org" <paulus@...ba.org>,
	"schwidefsky@...ibm.com" <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC 0/2] Reenable might_sleep() checks for might_fault() when
 atomic

From: David Hildenbrand
...
> Although it might not be optimal, but keeping a separate counter for
> pagefault_disable() as part of the preemption counter seems to be the only
> doable thing right now. I am not sure if a completely separated counter is even
> possible, increasing the size of thread_info.

What about adding (say) 0x10000 for the more restrictive test?

	David