linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] x86/intel_rdt: Ensure usage of CPUs are locked while needed

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:   Tue, 11 Dec 2018 21:43:10 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, fenghua.yu@...el.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
        gavin.hindman@...el.com, jithu.joseph@...el.com, mingo@...hat.com,
        hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] x86/intel_rdt: Ensure usage of CPUs are locked while
 needed

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 11:02:08AM -0800, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> I just wanted to emphasize that it is not the schemata writing that
> needs to be protected, but instead the pseudo-locking code that runs
> after schemata programming that needs to run on a particular CPU. The
> new patch subject could be interpreted to mean the former ... but that
> is starting to sound like nitpicking by me.

Nah, that's not nitpicking - it is important that we sort out stuff
fully before committing.

Now, I'm trying to understand what you're telling me and I believe you
mean what update_domains() does, yes?

And I guess a more fitting subject in that case could be:

  x86/intel_rdt: Ensure a CPU remains online for the region's pseudo-locking sequence

or so, and then the commit message explains in more detail what that
title actually means. :)

Hmmm.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.