linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] x86/irq: handle chained interrupts during IRQ migration

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:	Thu, 31 May 2012 09:30:52 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Sundar Iyer <sundar.iyer@...el.com>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com,
	german.monroy@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] x86/irq: handle chained interrupts during IRQ
 migration

On Tue, 29 May 2012, Sundar Iyer wrote:

> Chained interrupt handlers dont have an irqaction and hence are not
> handled during migrating interrupts when some cores go offline.
> 
> Handle this by introducing a irq_is_chained() check which is based
> on the IRQ_NOREQUEST flag being set for such interrupts. fixup_irq()
> can then handle such interrupts and not skip them over.

No, we need a separate flag for those. IRQ_NORREQUEST is not a
reliable indicator.
 
Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/