From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PF_USER_WORKERs and shadow stack
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 12:12:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250814101247.GC26754@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0e906a8a-5545-484e-9fe3-9be3e07a033a@intel.com>
On 08/13, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> On 8/13/25 12:14, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > So I'd like to ensure that ssp_active() can't return T in ssp_get().
> >
> > And... Dave, I understand that it is very easy to criticize someone else's code 😉
> > But - if I am right - the current logic doesn't look clean to me. Regardless.
>
> Hey, I'm all for having "clean" code. But if we're going to add
> complexity (aka. code) to the kernel, we should know what it's getting
> us other than "cleanliness".
>
> BTW, how many PF_USER_WORKER threads _are_ there out there? I wouldn't
> have thought that they were prevalent enough to justify much of an
> effort here.
Agreed. I'll send the patches I have in a minute. To me they don't add
too much complexity and imo they cleanup the changed code.
But! I understand that cleanups are always subjective, so please review
and share your opinion.
Oleg.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-14 10:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-13 16:28 Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-13 16:41 ` Dave Hansen
2025-08-13 19:14 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-13 19:20 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-08-13 19:21 ` Dave Hansen
2025-08-14 10:12 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250814101247.GC26754@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®