linux-kernel - Re: [patch] i386/x86_64: smp_call

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]

Date:	Fri, 09 Feb 2007 13:57:18 +0100
From:	Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@...ibm.com>
To:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, akpm@...l.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	ak@...e.de, schwidefsky@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] i386/x86_64: smp_call_function locking inconsistency

On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 09:42 +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> I just want to avoid that s390 has different semantics for
> smp_call_functiom*() than any other architecture. But then again it
> will probably not hurt since we allow more.
> Another thing that comes into my mind is smp_call_function together
> with cpu hotplug. Who is responsible that preemption and with that
> cpu hotplug is disabled?
> Is it the caller or smp_call_function itself?

I think the caller must disable preemption since smp_call_function()
means "do something on all but the current cpu". If the preempt_disable
would happen only in smp_call_function() it could already be running on
a different cpu, which is not what the caller wants.

If preemption must be disabled before smp_call_function() we should have
the same semantics for all smp_call_function_* variants.

Jan

-
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/