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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 11 Jan 2020 00:17:23 +0000
From:   Changbin Du <changbin.du@...il.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Changbin Du <changbin.du@...il.com>,
        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 08:58:37PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> 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?
> 
sure, and thanks for your suggestion. I will send v2 later.

> -- 
> Regards/Gruss,
>     Boris.
> 
> https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette

-- 
Cheers,
Changbin Du