linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH v2] trace: prevent preemption in perf_ftrace_function

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <d544af7d-60c2-bc3e-c7e4-eb26d5d7a836@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Oct 2021 13:51:13 +0800
From:   王贇 <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v2] trace: prevent preemption in
 perf_ftrace_function_call()



On 2021/10/11 下午10:45, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[snip]
>>>
>>> Oh, I might've gotten that wrong, I assumed regular trylock semantics,
>>> but it doesn't look like that's right.
>>
>> I will use bit instead ret and give some testing :-)
>>
>> BTW, would you prefer to merge these changes into this patch or maybe send
>> another patch with your suggested-by?
> 
> Yeah, please send another patch; once you've confirmed it actually works
> etc.. I did this before waking (as evidence per the above), who knows
> what else I did wrong :-)

I've send the:
  [PATCH 0/2] ftrace: make sure preemption disabled on recursion testing

should have taking care all the places, but only testing with x86 since I
got no machine for other arch... just by logically it should be fine.

Regards,
Michael Wang

>