linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] work_on_cpu: Use our own workqueue.

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:	Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:28:30 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Mike Travis <travis@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] work_on_cpu: Use our own workqueue.


* Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > But it's a general comment about fixing a general issue.  The 
> > currently known case is not directly relevent; that it can happen and 
> > it's restricting the use of this otherwise-general API is.
> 
> I think we should switch acpi-cpufreq to smp_call_function(), revert 
> this stuff and ban the calling of work_on_cpu() under locks.

I agree that do_drv_read()/write() should be converted to 
smp_function_call() (what it does is atomic: msr or PIO cycles).

Then work_on_cpu() can be removed for good, to not lure people into using 
it. You seem to agree that work_on_cpu() is unfixable so it's far better 
to offer nothing than to offer such a deceivingly named but fundamentally 
limited facility.

	Ingo
--
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/