[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180108170356.GD10913@1wt.eu>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 18:03:56 +0100
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] x86/thread_info: add TIF_NOPTI to disable PTI
per task
On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 05:57:11PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> > This flag indicates that the task will not use isolated page tables.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h | 8 ++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h
> > index 0022333..2f92cf1 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h
> > @@ -126,6 +126,14 @@ struct thread_info {
> > #define _TIF_X32 (1 << TIF_X32)
> > #define _TIF_FSCHECK (1 << TIF_FSCHECK)
> >
> > +/* The following flags only exist on x86-64. We can't use the shift anymore
>
> Please do not use this horrible comment syle
You mean, the fact that there is no '/*' alone on the first line or
anything else ?
> And what's wrong with (1UL << 32)?
It fails when inherited in assembly parts. Initially the test was based
on "testq $(_TIF_NOPTI), reg" and 1UL doesn't parse there, which is why
I had to abandon it. In the latest patch I dropped "testq" for "bt" so
I didn't need the mask anymore and it wouldn't be a problem... until
someone wants to use it again.
> > + * due to C using signed ints by default and asm using unsigned longs.
> > + */
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> > +# define TIF_NOPTI 32 /* disable PTI for this task */
>
> No tail comments please.
OK but I did exactly like is done for all other flags above :-/
Thanks,
Willy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists