linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86: UV uv_flush_tlb_others WARN

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <498A7FD3.5030900@kernel.org>
Date:	Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:57:39 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Cliff Wickman <cpw@....com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86: UV uv_flush_tlb_others WARN_ON

Cliff Wickman wrote:
> From: Cliff Wickman <cpw@....com>
> 
> uv_flush_tlb_others() (arch/x86/kernel/tlb_uv.c)
> The "WARN_ON(!in_atomic())" fails if CONFIG_PREEMPT is not enabled.
> And CONFIG_PREEMPT is not enabled by default in the distribution that
> most UV owners will use.
> 
> We could #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT the warning, but that is not good form.
> 
> And there seems to be no suitable fix to in_atomic() when CONFIG_PREMPT
> is not on.
>   As you commented, Ingo:
>   > and we have no proper primitive to test for atomicity. (mainly
>   > because we dont know about atomicity on a non-preempt kernel)
> 
> I propose that we drop the WARN_ON.
> 
> Diffed against 2.6.29-rc2
> 
> Signed-off-by: Cliff Wickman <cpw@....com>

Heh.. I included it in the first two merges but forgot it in the final
round.  Applying to tj-percpu.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/