linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.20-rc6-mm3

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070206235102.GC21969@elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 7 Feb 2007 00:51:02 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.20-rc6-mm3

* Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com> wrote:

> > | If we change the current "timer" entry to be listed as 
> > | "lapic-timer" and not "IO-APIC-edge" (or one of the other names) 
> > | and replace it with the count from LOC
> > 
> > this is a pretty clear sentence, i dont think i misunderstood 
> > anything about it. If i did, please point it out specifically.
> 
> Geez , man I've corrected this statement already .. [...]

i'm sorry, but where did you "correct this statement already"? You 
havent replied to your mail to correct it explicitly, and there's no 
later statement of yours that says anything near to "let me correct this 
via X" or "i was wrong here, i meant Y".

the only subsequent reference of yours seems to be:

| I'm not saying we should "fake" anything .. I'm saying list what's 
| really happening .. In a human readable way .

what you write here does not read as a 'correction', this disputes my 
characterisation, suggesting that your original point is still intact. 
How should i have known that you meant this to be a 'correction' of your 
original point, and that this (whatever it means precisely) replaces it?

if you concede a point or correct a statement then /please/ make it 
clear. There's nothing bad about being wrong or being stupid 
occasionally, it happens to all of us.

> Last and final correction. I'm saying drop the timer entry, which 
> means drop the call to request_irq() for irq0 . Add lines for 
> lapic-timer which take the place of LOC..

it's not a request_irq() but a setup_irq().

dropping the IRQ#0 line would be fatally wrong: /proc/interrupt lists 
all active interrupt lines. There can (and often is) a count in IRQ#0. 
Why should it be hidden?

furthermore, as i pointed it out earlier: what you suggest is bad for 
compatibility: removing/changing the non-count portions of the LOC or 
the IRQ#0 entry /will/ break scripts.

	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/