linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] tracing: add cond_resched to ftrace_replace

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Wed, 5 Dec 2018 11:33:42 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, mingo@...hat.com,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tracing: add cond_resched to ftrace_replace_code()

On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 11:43:12 +0100
Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org> wrote:

> > > +     schedulable = !irqs_disabled() && !preempt_count();  
> >
> > Is there a reason not to use preemptible() here?  
> 
> As I understand it preemptible() is defined to 0 if
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT is disabled.
> Thats no good right ?

No it's not, which means this isn't a good approach. I have a much
better idea on how to solve this. I'll post a small patch set in a bit.

-- Steve