linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] killing the NR

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:	Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:02:00 +0100
From:	Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] killing the NR_IRQS arrays.

>>> pci: each device/function has a unique irq, drivers need not know
>>>      about it afaics.
>> Then there is msi and with msi-x you can have up to 4K irqs.
>
> I have to admit I still don't really understand how this works
> at all. Can a driver that uses msi-x have different handlers
> for each of those interrupts registered simultaneously?

Yes.  It doesn't have to, though.

> I would expect that instead there should be only one 'struct irq'
> for the device, with the handler getting a 12 bit number argument.

Why?  The device really generates many different interrupts,
why hide this fact.

>> For talking to user space I expect we will have numbers for a long 
>> time
>> to come yet.
>
> I was wondering about that. Do you only mean /proc/interrupts or
> are there other user interfaces we need to worry about?

There's the IRQ affinity stuff too.

> For /proc/interrupts, what could break if we have interrupt numbers
> only local to each controller and potentially duplicate numbers
> in the list? It's good to be paranoid about changes to proc files,
> but I can definitely see value in having meaningful interrupt
> numbers in there instead of making up a more or less random mapping
> to a flat number space.

Duplicate all this stuff into /sys in a sane format (*) and
wait until userland catches up, then throw away the /proc
interfaces.  It'll take a while, and until that day you will
have to keep *some* interrupt number <-> interrupt bijection.
Userland tools that think they know what interrupt number
should be what are dead already.

(*) i.e., exposing the interrupt tree as a tree, cascaded
controllers and all.


Segher

-
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/