linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86, irq, fix logical AND/OR error in check_irq_vectors_for_cpu

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:	Fri, 27 Dec 2013 17:07:23 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Seiji Aguchi <seiji.aguchi@....com>,
	Yang Zhang <yang.z.zhang@...el.com>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
	Janet Morgan <janet.morgan@...el.com>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Ruiv Wang <ruiv.wang@...il.com>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, irq, fix logical AND/OR error in check_irq_vectors_for_cpu_disable()

On 12/27/2013 08:13 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>>
>> Back to my question, assume cpu1 will be off-lined and one irq affinity is
>> set as (1, 2) -- this irq will be bypassed. Looks good. But if one irq
>> affinity is set as only (1), -- this irq is bypassed, too. Not right!
> 
> Oh, yes, this is a bug.  ... and as you point out ...
> 

Does this mean the patch that is currently in my tree should not be
pushed to Linus?  It sounds like that to me...

	-hpa

--
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/