[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 13:35:33 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, linux_dti@...oud.com,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
will.deacon@....com, ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org,
kristen@...ux.intel.com, deneen.t.dock@...el.com,
Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/20] x86/alternative: use temporary mm for text
poking
On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 12:31:46PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> ...
>
> So while in general I agree with BUG_ON() being undesirable, I think
> liberal sprinking in text_poke() is fine; you really _REALLY_ want this
> to work or fail loudly. Text corruption is just painful.
Ok. It would be good to have the gist of this sentiment in a comment
above it so that it is absolutely clear why we're doing it.
And since text_poke() can't fail, then it doesn't need a retval too.
AFAICT, nothing is actually using it.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
