[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <563c21d91b4b8f29c434d0918d489ecdda3f67b7.camel@intel.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2024 00:55:23 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "dietmar.eggemann@....com" <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
"broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>, "Szabolcs.Nagy@....com"
<Szabolcs.Nagy@....com>, "brauner@...nel.org" <brauner@...nel.org>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"debug@...osinc.com" <debug@...osinc.com>, "mgorman@...e.de"
<mgorman@...e.de>, "vincent.guittot@...aro.org" <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
"fweimer@...hat.com" <fweimer@...hat.com>, "mingo@...hat.com"
<mingo@...hat.com>, "rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"hjl.tools@...il.com" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, "tglx@...utronix.de"
<tglx@...utronix.de>, "vschneid@...hat.com" <vschneid@...hat.com>,
"shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>, "bristot@...hat.com"
<bristot@...hat.com>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "peterz@...radead.org"
<peterz@...radead.org>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "bsegall@...gle.com"
<bsegall@...gle.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"juri.lelli@...hat.com" <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
CC: "keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>, "jannh@...gle.com"
<jannh@...gle.com>, "linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "catalin.marinas@....com"
<catalin.marinas@....com>, "linux-api@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFT v5 4/7] fork: Add shadow stack support to clone3()
On Fri, 2024-02-09 at 12:18 -0800, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
>
> So, don't we want to consume the token on the *new* task's MM, which
> was already duplicated but still unmapped? In which case I think the
> other arch's would need to GUP regardless of the existence of shadow
> stack atomic ops.
I mean for the !CLONE_VM case.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists