[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1902191238250.1644@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 12:38:42 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
catalin.marinas@....com, james.morse@....com,
valentin.schneider@....com, brgerst@...il.com, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
luto@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de, dvlasenk@...hat.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/x86: Save [ER]FLAGS on context switch
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 10:04:09AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Does that make more sense?
> >
> > It appears to me you're going about it backwards.
>
> So how about you do a GCC plugin that verifies limits on code-gen
> between user_access_begin/user_access_end() ?
>
> - No CALL/RET
> - implies user_access_end() happens
> - implies no fentry hooks
> - No __preempt_count frobbing
> - No tracepoints
> - ...
>
> That way you put the burden on the special code, not on the rest of the
> kernel.
And then you have kprobes ....
Powered by blists - more mailing lists