linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 6/8] preempt/dynamic: Provide preempt_schedule[

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: <20210206090338.GK8912@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Sat, 6 Feb 2021 10:03:38 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, jbaron@...mai.com, ardb@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 6/8] preempt/dynamic: Provide
 preempt_schedule[_notrace]() static calls

On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 08:31:22PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 04:30:56PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 03:04:23PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Fair enough I suppose. I'll slap a changelog and your SoB on it and I
> > > suppose I'll got commit the whole lot. Then we can forget about it
> > > again.
> > 
> > FWIW, the whole thing looks like this..
> > 
> > ---
> > Subject: static_call: Allow module use without exposing static_call_key
> > From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
> > Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 17:18:37 -0600
> > 
> > From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
> > 
> > When exporting static_call_key; with EXPORT_STATIC_CALL*(), the module
> > can use static_call_update() to change the function called.  This is
> > not desirable in general.
> 
> Looks good to me, thanks for fixing that up.  Never said I tested it ;-)

Yeah, and I'm the genius that 'tested' it with a MODULES=n build :-)