linux-kernel - Re: Can request_irq be called under spinlock?

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:23:57 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
cc:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Can request_irq be called under spinlock?

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > I dont think that proc_mkdir conventions have changed
> > recently. According to git blame fs/proc/generic.c:
> > 
> > ^1da177e (Linus Torvalds     2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700 580)     ent =
> > kmalloc(sizeof(struct proc_dir_entry) + len + 1, GFP_KERNEL);
> > 
> >   
> 
> I think its new that request_irq ends up calling proc_mkdir though.  But its
> moot now anyway; I cleaned up that code, and don't call request_irq under
> spinlock any more.

Just checked. The register_irq_proc() and register_handler_proc()
calls in request/setup_irq() have the same time stamp in git :)

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/