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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 24 May 2016 11:51:24 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <>
To:	Borislav Petkov <>
Cc:	Andy Lutomirski <>,,
	Andi Kleen <>,,
	Oleg Nesterov <>,,
	Steven Rostedt <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/traps: Don't for in_interrupt() to return true in
 IST handlers

@Andy, its linux-kernel@...r, not lkml@...r :-)

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:36:29AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:59:45AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Which use a sequence of: in_nmi(), in_irq(), in_softirq() to pick 1 out
> > of 4 possible contexts.
> So should we make it cleaner and explicit and define a 5th context of
> priorities higher than NMI?
> There's some room between those two:
>  *             NMI_MASK:        0x00100000
>  * PREEMPT_NEED_RESCHED:        0x80000000

A lot of pain; we'd have to go grow a whole bunch of things to 5.

Also, I don't think 5 is enough to model all the IST nesting. I'm also
not sure we really care too much; IST stuff is relatively rare. It just
means we can loose IST based trace events and the like, because its
treated as recursion.

So I think keeping it at 4 is fine, but we do want to make a semi
concious choice on how we map back to those 4.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists