From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 13:35:33 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/20] x86/alternative: use temporary mm for text poking Message-ID: <20190205123533.GN21801@zn.tnic> References: <20190129003422.9328-1-rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com> <20190129003422.9328-7-rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com> <20190205095853.GJ21801@zn.tnic> <20190205113146.GP17528@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190205113146.GP17528@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Rick Edgecombe , Andy Lutomirski , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, Thomas Gleixner , Nadav Amit , Dave Hansen , linux_dti@icloud.com, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, will.deacon@arm.com, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, kristen@linux.intel.com, deneen.t.dock@intel.com, Nadav Amit , Kees Cook , Dave Hansen , Masami Hiramatsu List-ID: 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.