linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/49] x86/alternatives: Remove the confusing, inaccurate & unnecessary 'temp_mm_state

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: <20250402075417.GS5880@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 09:54:17 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
	"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/49] x86/alternatives: Remove the confusing, inaccurate
 & unnecessary 'temp_mm_state_t' abstraction

On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 06:07:19AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 02:26:26PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > So the temp_mm_state_t abstraction used by use_temporary_mm() and
> > > > unuse_temporary_mm() is super confusing:
> > > 
> > > I thing I see what you're saying, but we also still have these patches
> > > pending:
> > > 
> > >   https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20241119162527.952745944@infradead.org
> > > 
> > > :-(
> > 
> > Yeah, so I think we should do your queue on top of mine, the
> > whole temp_mm_state_t abstraction was rather nonsensical,
> > and we shouldn't be iterating confusing code...
> > 
> > I've ported patches #1 and #3 from your queue on top, see
> > attached below - these should be the two that represent 99%
> > of the conflicts between these two efforts AFAICS.
> > 
> > Does that work for you?
> 
> To make this an easier decision, I've ported Andy's and your patches on 
> top of the x86/alternatives series, into WIP.x86/mm, resolving the 
> conflicts, with a few touchups:
> 
>   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mingo/tip.git WIP.x86/mm
> 
> Seems to work fine, after some light testing.
> 
> I'll send it out for another round of review if that's fine to you.

Yep, that looks right, Thanks!