linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] powerpc: restore current_thread

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 08 May 2019 10:42:37 +1000
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
        Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Yury Norov <ynorov@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: restore current_thread_info()

Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com> writes:
> On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 11:58:56PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 03:51:21PM -0700, Yury Norov wrote:
>> > Commit ed1cd6deb013 ("powerpc: Activate CONFIG_THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK")
>> > removes the function current_thread_info(). It's wrong because the
>> > function is used in non-arch code and is part of API.
>> 
>> In include/linux/thread_info.h:
>> 
>> #ifdef CONFIG_THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK
>> /*
>>  * For CONFIG_THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK kernels we need <asm/current.h> for the
>>  * definition of current, but for !CONFIG_THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK kernels,
>>  * including <asm/current.h> can cause a circular dependency on some platforms.
>>  */
>> #include <asm/current.h>
>> #define current_thread_info() ((struct thread_info *)current)
>> #endif
>
> Ah, sorry. Then it might be my rebase issue. I was confused because Christophe
> didn't remove the comment to current_thread_info(), so I decided he
> removed it erroneously.

Yeah you're right, that comment should have been removed too.

cheers