linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 09/14] entry: Rework syscall_exit_to_user_mode

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: <e74ab2c7-659e-5865-0b98-5d6b91718c0b@huawei.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2026 09:43:26 +0800
From: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...nel.org>, Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@....com>,
	<catalin.marinas@....com>, <will@...nel.org>, <oleg@...hat.com>,
	<peterz@...radead.org>, <luto@...nel.org>, <shuah@...nel.org>,
	<kees@...nel.org>, <wad@...omium.org>, <deller@....de>,
	<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <charlie@...osinc.com>, <mark.rutland@....com>,
	<anshuman.khandual@....com>, <song@...nel.org>, <ryan.roberts@....com>,
	<thuth@...hat.com>, <ada.coupriediaz@....com>, <broonie@...nel.org>,
	<pengcan@...inos.cn>, <liqiang01@...inos.cn>, <kmal@...k.li>,
	<dvyukov@...gle.com>, <reddybalavignesh9979@...il.com>,
	<richard.weiyang@...il.com>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 09/14] entry: Rework syscall_exit_to_user_mode_work()
 for arch reuse



On 2026/1/30 23:01, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30 2026 at 14:27, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
>> On 30/01/2026 11:16, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>> Agreed, the comments are essentially describing what each function
>>>> calls; considering how short they are, directly reading the code is
>>>> probably easier.
>>> No. Please keep them. There is more information in them than just the
>>> pure 'what's' called.
>>
>> That is true before this patch, where it made sense to highlight that
>> exit_to_user_mode() must still be called after this function (without
>> re-enabling interrupts). With this patch there is however much more that
>> this function is lacking, and it feels very likely that comments will go
>> out of sync with exactly what syscall_exit_to_user_mode() calls.
>>
>> I suppose we could simply point the reader to
>> syscall_exit_to_user_mode() to find out what else is needed, and keep
>> the comment about the calling convention being the same.
> 
> I've picked up _all_ four entry changes and reworked the comments and
> changelogs already.
> 
> Those patches should have been bundled together at the start of the
> series anyway so they can be picked up independently without going
> through loops and hoops. When will people learn to think beyond the brim
> of their architecture tea cup?

I'll make sure to group related changes together from the start next
time and keep the whole series in view, not just the
architecture-specific parts.
Thanks for taking the time to re-work them — much appreciated.

> 
> I'll go and apply them on top of 6.19-rc1 into core/entry and merge that
> into the scheduler branch to resolve the resulting conflict.
> 
> ARM64 can either pull that branch or wait until the next rc1 comes out.

Thanks for re-bundling the four entry patches and reworking the logs —
that definitely makes the series easier to pick up.

I'll rebase my remaining changes on top of 6.19-rc1 once the core/entry
branch lands.

Let me know if there’s anything I can do to simplify the logistics.

Regards,
Jinjie

> 
> Thanks,
> 
>         tglx
> 
>