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  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, 6 Mar 2020 19:48:42 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <>
Cc:     LKML <>,,
        Paolo Bonzini <>, KVM <>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] x86/kvm: Sanitize kvm_async_pf_task_wait()

On Sat, Mar 07, 2020 at 02:02:25AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> "Paul E. McKenney" <> writes:
> >> In #2c RCU is eventually not watching, but as that state cannot schedule
> >> anyway there is no point to worry about it so it has to invoke
> >> rcu_irq_enter() before running that code. This can be optimized, but this
> >> will be done as an extra step in course of the entry code consolidation
> >> work.
> >
> > In other words, any needed rcu_irq_enter() and rcu_irq_exit() are added
> > in one of the entry-code consolidation patches, and patch below depends
> > on that patch, correct?
> No. The patch itself is already correct when applied to mainline. It has
> no dependencies.
> It invokes rcu_irq_enter()/exit() for the case (#2c) where it is
> relevant. All other case are already RCU safe today.
> The fact that the invocation is misplaced is a different story and yes,
> that is part of the entry code cleanup along with some optimization
> which are possible once the entry voodoo is out of ASM and adjustable
> for a particular entry point in C.

The weekend clearly did not come a moment too soon for me, did it?  :-/

							Thanx, Paul

Powered by blists - more mailing lists