lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v10 6/6] x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by kernel parameter
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 12:29 PM Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 09:23:45PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 06:02:04PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > > > it requires we get the kernel and firmware clean, but only warns about
> > > > dodgy userspace, which I really don't think there is much of.
> > > >
> > > > getting the kernel clean should be pretty simple.
> > >
> > > Fenghua has a half dozen additional patches (I think they were
> > > all posted in previous iterations of the patch) that were found by
> > > code inspection, rather than by actually hitting them.
> >
> > I thought we merged at least some of that, but maybe my recollection is
> > faulty.
>
> At least 2 key fixes are in TIP tree:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/157384597983.12247.8995835529288193538.tip-bot2@tip-bot2/
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/157384597947.12247.7200239597382357556.tip-bot2@tip-bot2/

I do not like these patches at all. I would *much* rather see the
bitops fixed and those patches reverted.

Is there any Linux architecture that doesn't have 32-bit atomic
operations? If all architectures can support them, then we should add
set_bit_u32(), etc and/or make x86's set_bit() work for a
4-byte-aligned pointer.

--Andy

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-11-22 22:26    [W:0.157 / U:18.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site