[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzUq8uqsJyZRdNy4Rt11L561YcahwtTkHNU3Y2LeXGJEw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 11:42:19 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] x86: Verify access_ok() context
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> CONFIG_DEBUG_VM seems somehow inappropriate.
The usual might_fault() logic? That uses
defined(CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING) || defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP)
(and "might_sleep()" uses just CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP, maybe that's fine).
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists