linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fix BUG using smp_processor_id() in touch_nmi_watchdog and touch_softlockup

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, 17 Aug 2010 20:48:39 +0800
From:	Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
To:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix BUG using smp_processor_id() in touch_nmi_watchdog
 and touch_softlockup_watchdog

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 01:28:19PM +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > So preempt_disable() is redundant here.
> >
> 
> Shouldn't we be for sure not preepmtible when calling __raw_get_cpu_var?

IMHO, it's the caller's responsibility.

> 
> preempt_disable is reduntant here because current_thread_info()->cpu is 
> atomic and we just don't want preempt_(enable|disable) overhead?

Yep.

Thanks,
Yong
--
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/