linux-kernel - Re: Wanted: simple, safe x86 stack overflow detection

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <m1k5xdvttp.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date:	Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:53:22 -0600
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...o.co.il>
Cc:	Bill Irwin <bill.irwin@...cle.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
	Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Wanted: simple, safe x86 stack overflow detection

Avi Kivity <avi@...o.co.il> writes:

> I don't understand why interrupt latency suffers.  Sure, the interrupt that's
> being masked is delayed, but on the other hand the interrupt that's doing the
> masking is not.  We're moving the latency from the first interrupt to the
> second, probably with a slight gain in overall throughput.
>
> It *does* matter if the interrupts have meaningful priorities.  Is that the case
> here?

No.

I'll queue this in my irq things to think about...

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/