linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] task_work: use 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:   Fri, 16 Oct 2020 16:17:12 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, Roman Gershman <romger@...zon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] task_work: use TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL if available

On Fri, Oct 16 2020 at 07:35, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/16/20 3:39 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 16 2020 at 11:00, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> That's a truly great suggestion:
>> 
>>    X86 is going to have that TIF bit once the above is available.
>> 
>> I'm happy to help with the merge logistics of this.
>
> Not really following this email...

What I tried to convey is, that the x86 tif bit is not going in before
the complete thing (including cleanups) is available. I'm only half
joking.

> But it seems to me that you're happy with approach 2, so I'll do
> the following:
>
> - Get rid of the CONFIG_GENERIC_ENTRY dependency for TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL
> - Respin the arch additions and cleanups on top of that again
>
> And hopefully we'll have something mergeable at that point. Once we
> have this series merged somewhere (would be great if you could carry
> it), I'll be talking to arch folks on the rest. Once archs have taken
> the necessary bits, I'll be posting the third and final series which
> is the cleanups that are currently sitting on top of the arch support.

Can you please just post the full thing after resolving #1 of the list
items which I pointed out in the other reply?

With moving the handling into get_signal() you don't need more changes
to arch/* than adding the TIF bit, right? So there should not be much
talking involved other than agreeing on the bit number to use.

I might be missing something though.

Thanks,

        tglx