linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RT] arm64: fpsimd: use a local_lock() in addition to local_bh

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, 11 Jul 2018 09:33:46 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:     linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT] arm64: fpsimd: use a local_lock() in addition to
 local_bh_disable()

On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 15:31:57 +0200
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:

> On 2018-07-11 09:25:55 [-0400], Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Did you decide to create a local_lock_bh(lock) function? I don't see it.
> > 
> > And should this be backported to 4.14-rt too? You state you saw this in
> > 4.16-rt, but did you start doing something different then, or did the
> > kernel change?  
> 
> I wanted to re-evaluate the whole situation here but didn't get to it
> yet.

Thanks, I wont add this then.

-- Steve