|
Message-ID: <20161110215845.GD3117@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 22:58:45 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com> Cc: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, keescook@...omium.org, arnd@...db.de, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, h.peter.anvin@...el.com, will.deacon@....com, David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>, Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com> Subject: Re: [RFC v4 PATCH 03/13] kernel: identify wrapping atomic usage On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:24:38PM +0200, Elena Reshetova wrote: > include/linux/blktrace_api.h | 2 +- > include/linux/irqdesc.h | 2 +- > include/linux/kgdb.h | 2 +- > include/linux/padata.h | 2 +- > include/linux/perf_event.h | 10 ++-- > include/linux/sched.h | 2 +- > kernel/audit.c | 8 +-- > kernel/auditsc.c | 4 +- > kernel/debug/debug_core.c | 16 +++--- > kernel/events/core.c | 27 +++++----- > kernel/irq/manage.c | 2 +- > kernel/irq/spurious.c | 2 +- > kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 2 +- That's it for kernel/locking/ ? So qspinlock really needs the overflow tests? Colour me less than impressed with the quality of audit. > kernel/padata.c | 4 +- > kernel/profile.c | 14 ++--- > kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c | 61 ++++++++++----------- > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 36 +++++++------ > kernel/rcu/tree.h | 18 ++++--- > kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h | 6 +-- > kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 12 ++--- > kernel/rcu/tree_trace.c | 14 ++--- > kernel/sched/auto_group.c | 4 +- > kernel/time/timer_stats.c | 11 ++-- > kernel/trace/blktrace.c | 6 +-- > kernel/trace/ftrace.c | 4 +- > kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c | 100 ++++++++++++++++++----------------- > kernel/trace/trace_clock.c | 4 +- > kernel/trace/trace_functions_graph.c | 4 +- > kernel/trace/trace_mmiotrace.c | 8 +-- > 29 files changed, 199 insertions(+), 188 deletions(-)
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.