[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrUMoDqokABw+xobckqEuRE-ZaoDrBEv0JE=kcqVR7xYfg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:04:39 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/asm/entry/64: Enable interrupts *after* we fetch PER_CPU_VAR(old_rsp)
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com> wrote:
> Without this change, it is still not possible to get rid of
> PER_CPU_VAR(old_rsp) usage in switch_to: if preemption happens
> while we did not fetch PER_CPU_VAR(old_rsp) and stored it in pt_regs->sp,
> PER_CPU_VAR(old_rsp) gets corrupted by other task's user sp.
>
[...]
> - ENABLE_INTERRUPTS(CLBR_NONE)
[...]
> + ENABLE_INTERRUPTS(CLBR_RAX)
In future patches, please don't sneak these things in. It makes it
much harder to review. If you need to move code and change it like
this, I think it should be clearly and explicitly mentioned in the
changelog.
--Andy
--
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