On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:44:18PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> You're exactly correct, or at least you seem to understand it the way I do :)
Ok, cool.
Now, if I had more time, I'd take a guest and add some debugging
code to see when exactly that happens and how prev->context.ldt and
next->con
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 09:21:42AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> I think it's the same as in the other case in switch_mm. leave_mm does
>> cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(active_mm)), and, once that has
>> happened, modify_ldt won't s
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 09:21:42AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I think it's the same as in the other case in switch_mm. leave_mm does
> cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(active_mm)), and, once that has
> happened, modify_ldt won't send an IPI to this CPU. So, if leave_mm
> runs, and then anothe
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 03:57:37PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> The code is correct, but only for a rather subtle reason. This
>> confused me for quite a while when I read switch_mm, so clarify the
>> code to avoid confusing other peop
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 03:57:37PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> The code is correct, but only for a rather subtle reason. This
> confused me for quite a while when I read switch_mm, so clarify the
> code to avoid confusing other people, too.
>
> TBH, I wouldn't be surprised if this code was on
The code is correct, but only for a rather subtle reason. This
confused me for quite a while when I read switch_mm, so clarify the
code to avoid confusing other people, too.
TBH, I wouldn't be surprised if this code was only correct by
accident.
Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski
---
arch/x86/incl
6 matches
Mail list logo