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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 9 Jul 2016 14:01:27 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Cc:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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


* Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com> wrote:

> 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?

Yeah, would be good to do that in general, so that people can re-evaluate whether 
'this is rare' is still true years down the line. For newly touched code it makes 
sense to add a minimal comment that explains what is rare about the branch and so.

Thanks,

	Ingo