Messages in this thread | | | From | Andy Lutomirski <> | Date | Fri, 22 Nov 2019 13:25:45 -0800 | Subject | Re: [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
| |