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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 10:12:42 -0800 From: "Shi, Yang" <yang.shi@...aro.org> To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rt: x86: enable preemption in IST exception for x86-32 On 12/22/2015 4:06 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > * Yang Shi | 2015-12-14 15:06:44 [-0800]: > >> Mainline kernel commit 959274753857efe9c5f1ba35fe727f51e9aa128d >> ("x86, traps: Track entry into and exit from IST context"), introduced >> ist_enter which disables preemption uncondiontionally for both x86-64 and >> x86-32. However, x86-32 does not have an IST and the stack still belongs to >> the current task and there is no problem in scheduling out the task. > > no no. So from a quick look I *assumed* you merged your v1 and revert of the > Steven's patch into one piece. But now I see that you don't disable preemption > 64bit which means you revert upstream change. No, I neither merged my v1 patch nor reverted Steven's patch. Directed by Thomas's suggestion in v1 patch review, I looked into the code further. Currently, the code does: ist_enter disables preemption unconditionally for both x86-64 and x86-32 (by mainline commit). So, for the x86-64 part, it is fine since the preemption should be disabled because ist exception will use per CPU stack and signal delay send is necessary. But, disabling preemption on x86-32 is unnecessary since it doesn't have ist stacks, so the v2 patch re-enables preemption for x86-32. upstream commit 959274753857efe9c5f1ba35fe727f51e9aa128d ("x86, traps: Track entry into and exit from IST context") commit log has more details for the ist stacks. So, #1) v1 patch is not needed anymore since x86-32 still doesn't need signal delay send in v2, #2) don't need revert Steven's patch, the logic is just changed slightly (#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64 --> #if !defined(CONFIG_X86_64)) and adopted the mainline APIs. So, this is definitely a new approach for fixing the same problem and *not* an incremental patch. > > Here is what happens: > - I drop your v2 > - I merge your v1 with updated patch description > - I revert "x86: Do not disable preemption in int3 on 32bit". If someone > wants to skip the delayed signal on 32bit please address this upstream > first (that is skip the preempt_disable() on 32bit if it is not > required there). > - Yang Shi, please send a changelong if you send incremental patches. Sorry for any inconvenience. I should made the comment clearer at the first place even though it is not an incremental patch. Thanks, Yang > > Sebastian > -- 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