[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1712311513230.1899@nanos>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 15:14:12 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Review of KPTI patchset
On Sun, 31 Dec 2017, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > Granted, it's not obvious and ideally we convert those this_cpu_read/writes
> > to __this_cpu_read/writes() to get the immediate fail reported on the first
> > access.
>
> Indeed, if this function is expected to be called from non-preempt context,
> the __this_cpu_*() would be appropriate.
>
> Moreover, clear_asid_other() could use a "static" definition, given that it's only ever
> used from arch/x86/mm/tlb.c:choose_new_asid(). Otherwise nothing prevents other users
> from unrelated areas of the kernel from calling it, and then we should document that
> preemption needs to be disabled around its invocation.
>
> While we are there (discussing preemption and migration), I'm puzzled about the
> preempt_disable/enable in __native_flush_tlb(). First, it should cover the
> invalidate_user_asid() call too. Also, if the __ prefixed functions in this header
You're late to that discussion. That has been fixed already....
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists