On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 03:03:59PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > I thought the point was that the implementation I suggested was > NMI-proof? (And in reading Documentation/preempt-locking.txt it sounds > like disabling interrupts is redundant to preempt_disable()? But I > don't understand how; it looks like the preempt stuff is advisory?) Oter way round; disabling interrupts implicitly disables preemption
