linux-kernel - Re: IRQF_DISABLED problem

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: <20070726.152352.70218024.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	matthew@....cx
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...l.org
Subject: Re: IRQF_DISABLED problem

From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:13:56 -0600

> 
> I noticed that we only look at the first action in the chain when
> determining whether to re-enable local interrupts during handle_IRQ_event.
> But we don't try to exclude sharing interrupts with mixtures of
> IRQF_DISABLED set and clear.  I just tried to do that locally, and one
> of my USB ports disappears, because it shares an interrupt with qla2xxx
> which sets IRQF_DISABLED, and UHCI doesn't.
> 
> Another possibility is to force it if *any* of the handlers want
> IRQF_DISABLED.  This seems to work:

Yes, this is consistent with how we handle sharing, we should
enforce that all the flags on the chain are compatible.
-
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/