From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752994AbcHLQDo (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Aug 2016 12:03:44 -0400 Received: from mail-yb0-f176.google.com ([209.85.213.176]:36291 "EHLO mail-yb0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752801AbcHLQDH (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Aug 2016 12:03:07 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1470952169-39061-1-git-send-email-thgarnie@google.com> From: Thomas Garnier Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 09:03:05 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] x86/power/64: Restore processor state before using per-cpu variables To: Jiri Kosina Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Len Brown , Pavel Machek , Linux PM list , LKML , Kees Cook , Kernel Hardening , Borislav Petkov , Yinghai Lu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 2:23 AM, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Fri, 12 Aug 2016, Jiri Kosina wrote: > > That's pretty nasty, as turning LOCKDEP on has sideffects on the code > that'd normally not be expected to be run at all (tracepoint off). > > Oh well. Thanks for the analysis, I didn't got that far so I had no idea how everything was connected. > Thanks again, Thanks you and Borislav for finding it. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Reply-To: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1470952169-39061-1-git-send-email-thgarnie@google.com> From: Thomas Garnier Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 09:03:05 -0700 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v1] x86/power/64: Restore processor state before using per-cpu variables To: Jiri Kosina Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Len Brown , Pavel Machek , Linux PM list , LKML , Kees Cook , Kernel Hardening , Borislav Petkov , Yinghai Lu List-ID: On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 2:23 AM, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Fri, 12 Aug 2016, Jiri Kosina wrote: > > That's pretty nasty, as turning LOCKDEP on has sideffects on the code > that'd normally not be expected to be run at all (tracepoint off). > > Oh well. Thanks for the analysis, I didn't got that far so I had no idea how everything was connected. > Thanks again, Thanks you and Borislav for finding it.