linux-kernel - Re: Please revert 5adc55da4a7758021bcc374904b0f8b076508a11 (PCI_MULTITHREAD

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]

Message-ID: <20070509094647.GB13245@kroah.com>
Date:	Wed, 9 May 2007 02:46:47 -0700
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, bunk@...sta.de,
	cornelia.huck@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Please revert 5adc55da4a7758021bcc374904b0f8b076508a11
	(PCI_MULTITHREAD_PROBE)

On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 02:15:54PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 08:27:34 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> > Threading at the bus level just inevitably means things like random 
> > numbers for devices depending on some timing/scheduling issue. That's 
> > nasty.
> 
> I hadn't considered this issue, so ignore the other reply I made to
> this thread.  Although as an aside I'm starting to become of an
> opinion that device numbering doesn't matter.  Every device should
> have a unique ID of sorts, or a unique physical location, and that
> should factor into the thing users use to refer to the object.

We pretty much already do this today.

For block devices, as an example, look at /dev/disk/ which udev creates
so that you can handle block devices being discovered in any order
possible.

> Anyways, it would be nice, however, to really deal with the case like
> when the IDE layer is waiting for a probe to port X to timeout,
> meanwhile we could be initializing the networking card.
> 
> Another bad case is, as you mentioned, SCSI bus resets and SAS/FC
> fabric scans.  Those take several seconds if not longer and it's
> really stupid to not be able to do other things during that time.

Yes, because of that, I think this kind of multi-probe stuff should be
done in the IDE/SATA/SCSI bus code, not in the PCI code, as PCI
"normally" does not have any speed issues.

thanks,

greg k-h
-
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/