linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 13/15] livepatch: change to a per-task consistency model

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]

Message-ID: <20180125124403.GE2228@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:44:03 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...hat.com>,
        Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
        Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
        Chris J Arges <chris.j.arges@...onical.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 13/15] livepatch: change to a per-task consistency
 model

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 01:13:21PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > What I was getting at, the klp stuff is the very first thing we run when
> > we schedule the idle task, but its placed at the very end of the
> > function. This is confusing.
> 
> I see.
> 
> 
> > The above still doesn't help with solving that. Do you want to run
> > something before we go idle, or before we leave idle, in neither cases
> > would I place it where it is.
> 
> In fact, both ways are fine. We require going the idle task
> through the entire cycle anyway. It is because both situations,
> too long idling or non-idling, would block finishing the patch
> transition.
> 
> Feel free to move it right before schedule_idle() or
> __current_set_polling().

OK, I'll move it. Thanks!