linux-kernel - Re: [patch V6 07/37] x86/entry: Provide helpers for execute on irqstack

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:   Tue, 19 May 2020 01:53:00 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
        Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
        Jason Chen CJ <jason.cj.chen@...el.com>,
        Zhao Yakui <yakui.zhao@...el.com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra \(Intel\)" <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [patch V6 07/37] x86/entry: Provide helpers for execute on irqstack

Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> writes:
> Actually, I revoke my ack.  Can you make one of two changes:
>
> Option A: Add an assertion to run_on_irqstack to verify that irq_count
> was -1 at the beginning?  I suppose this also means you could just
> explicitly write 0 instead of adding and subtracting.
>
> Option B: Make run_on_irqstack() just call the function on the current
> stack if we're already on the irq stack.
>
> Right now, it's too easy to mess up and not verify the right
> precondition before calling run_on_irqstack().
>
> If you choose A, perhaps add a helper to do the if(irq_needs_irqstack)
> dance so that users can just do:
>
> run_on_irqstack_if_needed(...);
>
> instead of checking everything themselves.

I'll have a look tomorrow morning with brain awake.