linux-kernel - Re: x86 patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.9999.0710020949220.3348@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Tue, 2 Oct 2007 09:58:00 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mpm@...enic.com,
	"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: x86 patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:37:03AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 02 Oct 2007 08:18:17 +0200 Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The clockevents patches are not included in this; but given the 
> > > > recent trouble i'm not 100% sure they are even ready yet.
> > 
> > i'm curious, which "recent trouble" do you refer to? (The NMI watchdog 
> > bug [which is off by default] was fixed quickly. The C1E bug was found 
> > and fixed quickly. Anything else i missed?)
> 
> C1e and now the misrouted irq 0s Thomas reported.
> 
> Also i'm a little worried about the missing C1e check; it looks
> like it needs a re-review to make sure not other infrastructure was 
> missing.

I had completely forgotten about the C1E problem, which we debugged
half a year ago on 32bit. I went through the other pitfalls we had in
32bit carefully again and they are all covered on 64 bit too. C1E was
the only one I missed.

The irq0 problem is not a real one. The clock events code has no irq0 
bound to cpuX assumption at all. The only affected part is nmi_watchdog 
and I have a fix ready to handle this even for the irq#0 not on cpu#0 
case.

      tglx
-
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/