[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87v9o5nrad.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 16:54:02 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
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>,
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()
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> writes:
> 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.
Just mopping up my backlog. What happened to this?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists