linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC/RFB] x86_64, i386: interrupt dispatch changes

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: <1225820372.15162.1282956905@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Date:	Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:39:32 +0100
From:	"Alexander van Heukelum" <heukelum@...tmail.fm>
To:	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	"Cyrill Gorcunov" <gorcunov@...il.com>,
	"Alexander van Heukelum" <heukelum@...lshack.com>,
	"LKML" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, lguest@...abs.org,
	jeremy@...source.com, "Steven Rostedt" <srostedt@...hat.com>,
	"Mike Travis" <travis@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC/RFB] x86_64, i386: interrupt dispatch changes


On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 17:54:09 +0100, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu> said:
> 
> * Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm> wrote:
> 
> > > My estimation is that if we do it right, your approach will behave 
> > > better on modern CPUs (which is what matters most for such 
> > > things), especially on real workloads where there's a considerable 
> > > instruction-cache pressure. But it should be measured in any case.
> > 
> > Fully agreed. I will do some measurements in the near future, maybe 
> > next week. At least noone came up with an absolutely blocking 
> > problem with this approach ;).
> 
> how about "it does not build with lguest enabled" as a blocking 
> problem? ;-)
> 
>   arch/x86/lguest/built-in.o: In function `lguest_init_IRQ':
>   boot.c:(.init.text+0x33f): undefined reference to `interrupt'

The following makes it compile... Whether it works is a different
question ;).

index a5d8e1a..ad7e292 100644
--- a/arch/x86/lguest/boot.c
+++ b/arch/x86/lguest/boot.c
@@ -580,6 +580,7 @@ static struct irq_chip lguest_irq_controller = {
  * interrupt (except 128, which is used for system calls), and then
  tells the
  * Linux infrastructure that each interrupt is controlled by our
  level-based
  * lguest interrupt controller. */
+void maininterrupt(void);
 static void __init lguest_init_IRQ(void)
 {
        unsigned int i;
@@ -590,7 +591,7 @@ static void __init lguest_init_IRQ(void)
                 * a straightforward 1 to 1 mapping, so force that here.
                 */
                __get_cpu_var(vector_irq)[vector] = i;
                if (vector != SYSCALL_VECTOR) {
-                       set_intr_gate(vector, interrupt[vector]);
+                       set_intr_gate(vector, maininterrupt);
                        set_irq_chip_and_handler_name(i,
                        &lguest_irq_controller,
                                                      handle_level_irq,
                                                      "level");

> config attached.
> 
> 	Ingo
-- 
  Alexander van Heukelum
  heukelum@...tmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users:
  http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html

--
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/