[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141204142301.GA3269@lerouge>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 15:23:04 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: 3.18 nohz + audit regression (Re: [PATCH] context_tracking:
Restore previous state in schedule_user)
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 08:58:46PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> >
> > So, to summarize the choices for 3.18:
> >
> > 4. This patch.
>
> I've applied it. The alternatives look worse, and the patch doesn't
> look bad. In many ways it looks better than the old user_exit/enter
> pair, although obviously the "schedule_user()" name is kind of odd
> now. Whatever.
That doesn't look like the safest approach to me. Somehow I felt more
comfortable with exception_enter/exit on the audit function.
A few other archs use schedule_user() as well, it's likely fine but I'm
not sure how subtle their path is.
Besides, is it possible that the audit function gets called after
syscall_trace_leave() or do_notify_resume()? If so, the patch won't fix
the issue entirely.
--
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