[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWJ8PLbxvX6yuP7Q3kz_=dZinacUd-3-OqUkZNSMCE34g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 18:48:24 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@...hat.com>,
Pedro Alves <palves@...hat.com>, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] x86: fix get_nr_restart_syscall()
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 12:02 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 7:19 AM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Andy, Linus, do you have any objections?
>
> It's ok by me, no objections. I still don't love your "hide the bit in
> thread flags over return to user space", and would still prefer it in
> the restart block, but I don't care _that_ deeply.
>
I'd rather stick it in restart_block. I'd also like to see the kernel
*verify* that the variant of restart_syscall() that's invoked is the
same as the variant that should be invoked. In my mind, very few
syscalls say "I can't believe there are no major bugs in here" like
restart_syscall(), and being conservative is nice.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists