linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] x86: Pass kernel thread parameters in fork

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: <CAMzpN2iou897i1f621Oh442ZoUY7A4=3FOhCP-qnT5U5BMEd5A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 Jun 2016 00:24:36 -0400
From:	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
	"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] x86: Pass kernel thread parameters in fork_frame

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:01:02AM -0400, Brian Gerst wrote:
>> The idea was to put the uncommon case (kernel thread) out of line for
>> performance reasons.
>
> A comment saying so wouldn't hurt...

This is a fairly common pattern.  Do we have to document every case of it?

--
Brian Gerst