linux-kernel - Re: Do we need to disable preemption in flush_tlb

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 14 Mar 2018 13:19:01 -0700
From:   Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
To:     Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@...opsys.com>
CC:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Do we need to disable preemption in flush_tlb_range()?

+CC Peter since we have his attention ;-)

On 03/01/2018 07:13 AM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> Hi Vineet,
> 
> Just noticed that in comments for smp_call_function_many() it is said that
> preemption must be disabled during its execution. And that function gets executed
> among other ways like that:
> -------------------------->8-----------------------
>    flush_tlb_range()
>      -> on_each_cpu_mask()
>           -> smp_call_function_many()
> -------------------------->8-----------------------

In general I prefer not to - Peter what say you ?

> 
> I'm not seeing right now any real problem with current implementation but
> some architectures do that thus the question.
> 
> -Alexey
>