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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 1 May 2019 17:51:51 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, jdike@...toit.com, Steve Capper <Steve.Capper@....com>, Haibo Xu <haibo.xu@....com>, Bin Lu <bin.lu@....com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] x86: clean up _TIF_SYSCALL_EMU handling using ptrace_syscall_enter hook On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 05:57:11PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 04/30, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 04:33:22PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > > And it seems that _TIF_WORK_SYSCALL_ENTRY needs some cleanups too... We don't need > > > "& _TIF_WORK_SYSCALL_ENTRY" in syscall_trace_enter, and _TIF_WORK_SYSCALL_ENTRY > > > should not include _TIF_NOHZ? > > > > > > > I was about to post the updated version and checked this to make sure I have > > covered everything or not. I had missed the above comment. All architectures > > have _TIF_NOHZ in their mask that they check to do work. And from x86, I read > > "...syscall_trace_enter(). Also includes TIF_NOHZ for enter_from_user_mode()" > > So I don't understand why _TIF_NOHZ needs to be dropped. > > I have already forgot this discussion... But after I glanced at this code again > I still think the same, and I don't understand why do you disagree. > Sorry, but I didn't have any disagreement, I just said I don't understand the usage on all architectures at that moment. > > Also if we need to drop, we can address that separately examining all archs. > > Sure, and I was only talking about x86. We can keep TIF_NOHZ and even > set_tsk_thread_flag(TIF_NOHZ) in context_tracking_cpu_set() if some arch needs > this but remove TIF_NOHZ from TIF_WORK_SYSCALL_ENTRY in arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h, > afaics this shouldn't make any difference. > OK, it's just x86, then I understand your point. I was looking at all the architectures, sorry for the confusion. > And I see no reason why x86 needs to use TIF_WORK_SYSCALL_ENTRY in > syscall_trace_enter(). > Agreed -- Regards, Sudeep
Powered by blists - more mailing lists