linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] Add hard_irq

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: <20070509224113.cca81a24.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 9 May 2007 22:41:13 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Add hard_irq_disable()

On Thu, 10 May 2007 15:25:58 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:

> --- linux-cell.orig/include/linux/interrupt.h	2007-05-10 14:51:22.000000000 +1000
> +++ linux-cell/include/linux/interrupt.h	2007-05-10 15:18:04.000000000 +1000
> @@ -241,6 +241,16 @@ static inline void __deprecated save_and
>  #define save_and_cli(x)	save_and_cli(&x)
>  #endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
>  
> +/* Some architectures might implement lazy enabling/disabling of
> + * interrupts. In some cases, such as stop_machine, we might want
> + * to ensure that after a local_irq_disable(), interrupts have
> + * really been disabled in hardware. Such architectures need to
> + * implement the following hook.
> + */
> +#ifndef hard_irq_disable
> +#define hard_irq_disable()	do { } while(0)
> +#endif

We absolutely require that the architecture's hard_irq_disable() be defined
when we do this.  If it happens that the definition of hard_irq_disable()
is implemented three levels deep in nested includes then we risk getting
into a situation where different .c files see different implementations of
hard_irq_disable(), which could lead to confusing results, to say the least.

Your implementation comes via the inclusion of system.h which then includes
hw_irq.h.  That's perhaps a little fragile and it would be better to

a) include in the comment the name of the arch file which must implement
   hard_irq_disable() and

b) include that file directly from this one.

Oh, and your comment layout style is wrong ;)
-
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/