linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/nmi: remove the irqwork from long duration nmi handler

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]

Date:   Fri, 10 Jan 2020 20:58:37 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Changbin Du <changbin.du@...il.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/nmi: remove the irqwork from long duration nmi
 handler

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 05:34:50PM +0000, Changbin Du wrote:
> Just to move all the check code together and be a standalone function.
> yes, this somewhat does code refining after the irqwork is removed but
> I think it is normal.

But it makes review harder because your patch is removing irq_work,
*nothing* in the commit message is talking about *why* you're doing
that additional change. I'd imagine at the end of the commit message
something like:

"While at it, repurpose the IRQ work callback into a function which
concentrates the NMI duration checking."

This lets a reader know know why that additional change is done instead
of going back'n'forth and having to ask you why you're doing this.

Ok?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette