linux-kernel - Re: x86: meaning of nolapic command line option

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: <20090111024642.GA7077@elte.hu>
Date:	Sun, 11 Jan 2009 03:46:42 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>
Cc:	tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: x86: meaning of nolapic command line option


* Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com> wrote:

> Shouldn't that option imply that all APIC related activity, including 
> that relating to IO-APICs or PCI MSI, should be circumvented? I'm 
> finding that MSI must be disabled separately, and while most of the 
> IO-APIC stuff is indeed not happening, acpi_get_override_irq() only 
> checks skip_ioapic_setup, but that doesn't normally set without the 
> noapic command line option.
> 
> Is there any reason pci_no_msi() and disable_ioapic_setup() shouldn't be 
> called when !cpu_has_apic at the end of identify_cpu()?

Yes, both depend on a lapic and they might limp on with whatever the BIOS 
gave us, you are right that it should be disabled explicitly. Mind sending 
a patch?

	Ingo
--
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/