From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Reply-To: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 09:37:18 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Message-ID: <20161117083718.GA3142@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <CAEXv5_j22xaH4cfVztp58XJxCo8UDut44ei_0Rhv_FUbfHDwsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGXu5jJ0h6+r7T1bcrzVW0gF3Jis1shDbxcpxXR9sniD0B+74A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161111174630.GO3117@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAGXu5j+_wdv_vn=Us-i=bvCwCGk5Ks_gpoK9bHja4dDNUZi9eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161111201704.GQ3117@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAGXu5jJG0LUxLPtqr79PG=RmWgV96sy2j7dQKr9yvjadzrc3Ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <1479228602.4622.64.camel@redhat.com>
 <CAGXu5j+eA9wPMpM18iiD0RVX7UZVoLRn8JBKG2d8b3FF5+vwKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1479316156.21171.30.camel@redhat.com>
 <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612B41C1196C@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612B41C1196C@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [RFC v4 PATCH 00/13] HARDENED_ATOMIC
To: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@intel.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, "kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, David Windsor <dave@progbits.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "Anvin, H Peter" <h.peter.anvin@intel.com>, Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr
List-ID: <kernel-hardening.lists.openwall.com>

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 05:34:48PM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote:

> I have a coccinelle rule now that found about 15 usages of it. 

Right, so can coccinelle detect the call_rcu/free call that is
conditional on the dec_and_test when its hidden inside a few function
calls?

Also, we should really have a "make spatch" target so that we can run
the thing concurrently with -j80 or somesuch, because as is coccinelle
is unbearably slow.