linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/core: don't include asm/mmu

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: <CALCETrUqxR+WgOy++jjm0Tt1ixmQocsu5+5DpDXtBknhK=pkwg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 29 Apr 2016 11:52:37 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/core: don't include asm/mmu_context from drivers

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Friday 29 April 2016 09:42:18 Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 10:52:32 +0200
>> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>>
>> > This reverts the earlier fix attempt and works around the problem
>> > by including both linux/mmu_context.h and asm/mmu_context.h from
>> > kernel/sched/core.c. This is not a good solution but seems less
>> > hacky than the alternatives.
>>
>> What about simply not compiling finish_arch_post_lock_switch() when
>> building modules?
>>
>> (untested, not compiled or anything)
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
>>
>
> It should work as well.
>
> I think I suggested doing that the last time the problem came up
> a few years ago, but we ended up not including the header instead,
> so I kept doing that.
>
>         Arnd

This variant looks considerably nicer to me.

--Andy