| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0611220924490.3457@woody.osdl.org> Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 09:28:16 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org> To: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org> cc: Morton Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, mingo@...hat.com, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...ibm.com>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>, linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, dev@...ru Subject: Re: 2.6.19-rc6: known regressions (v4) On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, Pavel Emelianov wrote: > > This works for me, but is this normal that desc's fields are > modified non-atomically in note_interrupt()? This is all inside the normal interrupt handling logic, so it should be exactly as safe as any interrupt is: we don't allow the _same_ interrupt to be entered recursively at the same time. So yes, the counts etc are done non-atomically, but the code around it all guarantees that only one concurrent invocation happens per irq descriptor, so it's all ok. (The one exception to that may be the "desc->status" modification in case the irq is determined to have screamed, since "status" can be modified by a recursive interrupt coming in, but (a) that's a "this irq is dead" schenario _anyway_ and (b) if we ever care, we should lock it _there_, not somewhere else). Linus - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists