linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] genirq: handle_fasteoi_irq vs IRQ_INPROGRESS && 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: <20070821103527.GC1778@ff.dom.local>
Date:	Tue, 21 Aug 2007 12:35:27 +0200
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] genirq: handle_fasteoi_irq vs IRQ_INPROGRESS && IRQ_DISABLED

On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 11:17:00AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I've still some doubts about these irq handlers and I hope somebody
> could explain some of these (despite my problems with earlier such
> explanations, sorry...):
> 
> 1. According to some well-known Intel's manual (vol.3A page 8-41)
> lapic can interrupt irq handler dispatching higher-priority irq; it
> seems, such an event is possible during handle_IRQ_event, and would
> be treated by "common" handlers with IRQ_INPROGRESS; but:

OOPS!!! Of course, I got this wrong again: this IRQ_INPROGRESS is
for another irq... Sorry!

But, then, it seems such IRQ_INPROGRESS shouldn't be possible at all
with properly working lapic? Or do I miss something...

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/