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  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:	Tue, 6 Oct 2015 09:29:44 +0100
From:	Linus Torvalds <>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <>
Cc:	"the arch/x86 maintainers" <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
	Brian Gerst <>,
	Denys Vlasenko <>,
	Borislav Petkov <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 22/36] x86/entry: Add C code for fast system call entries

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Linus Torvalds
<> wrote:
>> +       local_irq_enable();
>> +       if (get_user(*(u32 *)&regs->cx,
>> +                    (u32 __user __force *)(unsigned long)(u32)regs->sp)) {
> ...
>> +       local_irq_disable();
> this is expensive. Since we now do it in C code and can easily do
> this, why does the code not do this all with interrupts disabled,
> which is valid for user accesses but disables page faults, and then in
> the unlikely situation where that fails, we do it the slow and careful
> way?

Ok. I notice that then a later patch removes the local_irq_disable()
and calls do_syscall_32_irqs_on().

So I guess that "just run get_user with interrupts disabled"
optimization is pointless, because we'll just end up enabling
interrupts at some point anyway, and it can just be done before the

So never mind.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists