linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/15] x86: move enabling of io_apic to prepare

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 11 Jun 2008 01:29:47 +0100 (BST)
From:	"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
cc:	Glauber Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu,
	hugh@...itas.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/15] x86: move enabling of io_apic to prepare_cpus

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008, Yinghai Lu wrote:

> ExtINT is routed to ioapic pin0. but the dst is set to 0.
> and the systems has multi sockets with quadcore cpu, so the apic id of boot cpu
> is set to 4 instead of 0

 Thanks for the info.  Let me understand the situation better: local APIC
IDs are preassigned by the firmware based on their "socket address" and
the socket where the lowest numbered quad would be is empty.  
Nevertheless the firmware sets the destination ID of the ExtINTA interrupt
in the I/O APIC to 0 rather than the ID of the bootstrap CPU.  Is that
correct?

 But it would mean the Virtual Wire interrupt delivery would not work, or
is the I/O APIC setup redundant and the local APIC of the bootstrap CPU is
set up for ExtINTA delivery as well?

  Maciej
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/