linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/16] x86, fpu: wrap get_xsave

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: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1504221726100.13914@nanos>
Date:	Wed, 22 Apr 2015 17:26:46 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
cc:	Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, riel@...hat.com, sbsiddha@...il.com,
	luto@...capital.net, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
	fenghua.yu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/16] x86, fpu: wrap get_xsave_addr() to make it safer

On Wed, 22 Apr 2015, Borislav Petkov wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 05:17:08PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Is there a reason to have the task argument at all if thats only
> > intended for current?
> 
> Right, so I think we either use @tsk everywhere or disable preemption in
> the whole function if using current. But I think we want to use @tsk...

Why should we disable preemption?

Thanks,

	tglx

--
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/