linux-kernel - Re: [patch] Add allowed_affinity to the irq_desc to make it possible to have restricted irqs

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: <m1ac1rpn4z.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date:	Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:16:28 -0700
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Add allowed_affinity to the irq_desc to make it possible to have restricted irqs

Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> writes:

>> .
>> 
>> In addition the cases I can think of allowed_affinity is the wrong
>> name.  suggested_affinity sounds like what you are trying to implement
>> and when it is merely a suggestion and not a hard limit it doesn't
>> make sense to export like this.
>
> it really IS a hard limit. 

Ok.  Which generally makes it uninteresting.  The only cases that I know
with a hard limit are completely unrouteable.

In addition upon reflection you don't handle PER_CPU irqs properly.  As
I recall ia64 uses a different per cpu irq source to target each
individual processor.  But because they are the same the share the
irq source.

I don't think allowed_affinity can even describe the case above.

Eric

-
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/