linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/x86: Save [ER]FLAGS on context switch

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]

Message-ID: <20190219091925.GU32534@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 19 Feb 2019 10:19:25 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>, valentin.schneider@....com,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/x86: Save [ER]FLAGS on context switch

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 10:15:25AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 04:24:30PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 2:31 PM H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The question is what "fix it" means. I'm really concerned about AC escapes,
> > > and everyone else should be, too.
> > 
> > I do think that it might be the right thing to do to add some kind of
> > WARN_ON_ONCE() for AC being set in various can-reschedule situations.
> 
> So I disagree.
> 
> Either we set AC with preempt disabled, and then we don't need an extra
> warning, because we already have a warning about scheduling with
> preemption disabled, or we accept that the fault handler can run.

n/m about the faults, forgot the obvious :/

I still really dislike wrecking the preemption model over this.