linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lockdep: annotate i386 apm

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]

Message-ID: <20061012080212.GA14307@elte.hu>
Date:	Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:02:12 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, sfr@...b.auug.org.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockdep: annotate i386 apm


* Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org> wrote:

> > So, say interrupts were enabled when entering apm_bios_call*(); you now
> > save that in flags, disable interrupts, and enable them again.
> > Upon reaching local_irq_restore(), we'll hit the else branch with irq's
> > enabled and call trace_hardirqs_on(), which goes EEEK!
> 
> I'd assumed lockdep was less stupid than that ;) This?  Seems a bit 
> overdone..

the problem is not lockdep but that the BIOS enables IRQs behind the 
back of the kernel. Lockdep needs to be taught about that - if this 
happens unconditionally then i'd suggest to insert an unconditional 
trace_hardirqs_on() call to after the local_irq_save() that we do prior 
calling the BIOS. (that will be a NOP if lockdep is not enabled)

	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/