linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] mm: Generalize notify_page

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: <20190530133954.GA2024@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Thu, 30 May 2019 06:39:54 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC] mm: Generalize notify_page_fault()

On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 05:31:15PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 05/30/2019 04:36 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > The two handle preemption differently.  Why is x86 wrong and this one
> > correct?
> 
> Here it expects context to be already non-preemptible where as the proposed
> generic function makes it non-preemptible with a preempt_[disable|enable]()
> pair for the required code section, irrespective of it's present state. Is
> not this better ?

git log -p arch/x86/mm/fault.c

search for 'kprobes'.

tell me what you think.