linux-kernel - Re: BUG: using smp_processor_id() during suspend with 2.6.25-rc8

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: <20080407221210.GF16647@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Tue, 8 Apr 2008 00:12:10 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Zdenek Kabelac <zdenek.kabelac@...il.com>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: BUG: using smp_processor_id() during suspend with 2.6.25-rc8

On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 12:04:39AM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> > > It is not safe to call smp_processor_id() in cases we are not sure 
> > > someone will not reschedule us.
> > We are sure. Machine checks always run with interrupts off.
> 
> I know. However preempt_count is a little bit inconsistent in such cases 
> though.

And? interrupts off beats preempt count anyways.

Why did you write the patch? Was there a (incorrect) warning triggered?

-Andi
--
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/