linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHSET RFC v3 0/6] Add support for TIF_NOTIFY

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

Date:   Wed, 14 Oct 2020 01:34:32 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
Cc:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        io-uring@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        live-patching@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET RFC v3 0/6] Add support for TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL

Jens,

On Tue, Oct 13 2020 at 13:39, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/12/20 11:27 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> I'm continuing to hone the series, what's really missing so far is arch
> review. Most conversions are straight forward, some I need folks to
> definitely take a look at (arm, s390). powerpc is also a bit hair right
> now, but I'm told that 5.10 will kill a TIF flag there, so that'll make
> it trivial once I rebase on that.

can you pretty please not add that to anything which is not going
through kernel/entry/ ?

The amount of duplicated and differently buggy, inconsistent and
incomplete code in syscall and exception handling is just annoying.

It's perfectly fine if we keep that #ifdeffery around for a while and
encourage arch folks to move over to the generic infrastructure instead
of proliferating the status quo by adding this to their existing pile.

The #ifdef guarding this in set_notify_signal() and other core code
places wants to be:

    #if defined(CONFIG_GENERIC_ENTRY) && defined(TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL)

Thanks,

        tglx