linux-kernel - Re: TARGET_CPUS in assign_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]

Date:	Tue, 09 Sep 2008 17:50:08 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
CC:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: TARGET_CPUS in assign_irq_vector

Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
>   
>> Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>     
>>> target_cpus is the cpus that could be possible to used to take vector
>>> and process that irq. so at least it should be online.
>>>
>>>       
>> Would it be wrong to make it possible_cpu_mask?
>>
>>     
> it is wrong

What happens if you online a new cpu and migrate the irq to it?  Does it
get allocated a new vector?

I'm using create_irq() as a general irq and vector allocation mechanism
for Xen interrupts.  I'd like to be able to allocate a vector across all
possible cpus so I can bind Xen event channels to vectors.  Should I: 1)
add a create_irq_cpus() which takes a cpu mask rather than defaulting to
TARGET_CPUS, 2) modify struct genapic to insert by own target_cpus(), 
3) give up because the idea is fundamentally ill-conceived, or 4)
something else?

Thanks,
    J

--
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/