From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Tobin C. Harding" <me@tobin.cc>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V11 2/5] vsprintf: refactor %pK code out of pointer()
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 15:27:46 +1100
Message-ID: <20171129042746.GF15500@eros>
References: <1511921105-3647-1-git-send-email-me@tobin.cc>
 <1511921105-3647-3-git-send-email-me@tobin.cc>
 <20171128213957.2edf5069@gandalf.local.home>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>,
        "Roberts, William C" <william.c.roberts@intel.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Jordan Glover <Golden_Miller83@protonmail.ch>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        Ian Campbell <ijc@hellion.org.uk>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <wilal.deacon@arm.com>,
        Chris Fries <cfries@google.com>,
        Dave Weinstein <olorin@google.com>,
        Daniel Micay <danielmicay@gmai
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171128213957.2edf5069@gandalf.local.home>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 09:39:57PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:05:02 +1100
> "Tobin C. Harding" <me@tobin.cc> wrote:
> 
> > +		/*
> > +		 * kptr_restrict==1 cannot be used in IRQ context
> > +		 * because its test for CAP_SYSLOG would be meaningless.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (in_irq() || in_serving_softirq() || in_nmi())
> 
> This could be replaced with:
> 
> 		if (!in_task())
> 
> Which is actually more efficient.

thanks for the comment Steve. At this late stage in the game do you mind
if I don't include this change in this set. The code line in question is
only in the series because of refactoring. I'm comfortable arguing that
improving efficiency is out of scope ;)

thanks,
Tobin.