linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.23-rc2: WARNING: at kernel/irq/resend.c:70 check_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: <20070810091231.GH1764@ff.dom.local>
Date:	Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:12:31 +0200
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	John Stoffel <john@...ffel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, vignaud@...dmail.fr,
	marcin.slusarz@...il.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	linux-net@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.23-rc2: WARNING: at kernel/irq/resend.c:70 check_irq_resend()

On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 10:56:11AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
...
> this changes the picture completely and makes the IO-APIC/local-APIC hw 
> retrigger code/logic the main suspect. I think you right that it's quite 
> bogus to hw-retrigger level irqs, and that could be confusing the 
> IO-APIC (or the local APIC, or both).
> 
> and i think i see why my first sw-resend patch didnt do the trick:
> 
> > > -               if (!desc->chip || !desc->chip->retrigger ||
> > > -                                       !desc->chip->retrigger(irq)) {
> > > +               if (desc->handle_irq == handle_edge_irq) {
> > > +                       if (desc->chip->retrigger)
> > > +                               desc->chip->retrigger(irq);
> > > +                       return;
> > > +               }
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND
> 
> we used the hw-resend method unconditionally, right?

Right: unconditionally on a condition they are not edges...

But, since not resending at all seems to work so good in testing,
I thought, _SW_RESEND could be considered as an unnecessarily
complicated alternative.

Now, I'm a bit confused...

Jarek P.
-
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/