From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail202.messagelabs.com (mail202.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.227]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F3896B0083 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:48:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:46:54 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [Security] DoS on x86_64 In-Reply-To: <4B621D48.4090203@zytor.com> Message-ID: References: <144AC102-422A-4AA3-864D-F90183837EA3@googlemail.com> <20100128001802.8491e8c1.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4B61B00D.7070202@zytor.com> <4B62141E.4050107@zytor.com> <4B621D48.4090203@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Andrew Morton , security@kernel.org, "Luck, Tony" , James Morris , Mike Waychison , Michael Davidson , linux-mm@kvack.org, Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Mathias Krause , Roland McGrath List-ID: On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > I think your splitup patch might still be a good idea in the sense that > your flush_old_exec() is the parts that can fail. Yeah. And it does have the advantage that then the naming really matches what it does. Side note: my splitup was purely by "can fail"/"cannot fail", it wasn't really by "flush old"/"setup new". So the split could certainly be done better, even if from a practical perspective it probably doesn't much matter. > So I think the splitup patch, plus removing delayed effects, might be > the right thing to do? Testing that approach now... Ok, thanks. Linus -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org