| 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: <1171025838.5349.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists