linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] vt: Fix sleeping functions called from atomic context

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]

Date:   Wed, 17 Nov 2021 10:55:44 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
To:     "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
Cc:     syzbot+5f47a8cea6a12b77a876@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
        Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
        Bhaskar Chowdhury <unixbhaskar@...il.com>,
        Igor Matheus Andrade Torrente <igormtorrente@...il.com>,
        nick black <dankamongmen@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vt: Fix sleeping functions called from atomic context

On 2021/11/16 23:49, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> -	if (in_interrupt())
> +	if (!preemptible())
>  		return count;

preemptible() is "an unconditional 0" if CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=n .
Is preemptible() really what we want? ;-)