linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86/dumpstack: Fix misleading instruction pointer error message

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]

Message-ID: <20201103181114.GC23992@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Nov 2020 19:11:15 +0100
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Mark Mossberg <mark.mossberg@...il.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
        mingo@...hat.com, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        hpa@...or.com, jannh@...gle.com, kyin@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/dumpstack: Fix misleading instruction pointer
 error message

On 11/03, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 06:47:44PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > I'm thinking this should not use the atomic variant if it can get called
> > > in !atomic context too.
> >
> > For what?
>
> I'm thinking copy_code() should not use copy_from_user_nmi() if former
> can be called in non-atomic context too.

I understand, but why do you think this makes sense?

Say, do you think it is fine to block in fuse_readpage() ?

Anyway, this is off-topic and I won't argue.

Oleg.