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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20160524095124.GR3193@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:51:24 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> 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