linux-kernel - Re: Proposal: HAVE_SEPARATE_IRQ

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2016 18:39:54 +0100
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org,
        WireGuard mailing list <wireguard@...ts.zx2c4.com>,
        k@...ka.home.kg
Subject: Re: Proposal: HAVE_SEPARATE_IRQ_STACK?

Hi Thomas,

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> Do not even think about going there. That's going to be a major
> mess.

Lol! Okay. Thank you for reigning in my clearly reckless
propensities... Sometimes playing in traffic is awfully tempting.

>
> As a short time workaround you can increase THREAD_SIZE_ORDER for now and
> then fix it proper with switching to seperate irq stacks.

Okay. I think in the end I'll kmalloc, accept the 16% slowdown [1],
and focus efforts on having a separate IRQ stack. Matt emailed in this
thread saying he was already looking into it, so I think by the time
that slowdown makes a difference, we'll have the right pieces in place
anyway.

Thanks for the guidance here.

Regards,
Jason

[1] https://git.zx2c4.com/WireGuard/commit/?id=cc3d7df096a88cdf96d016bdcb2f78fa03abb6f3