linux-kernel - Re: lockdep and threaded IRQs (was: ...)

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: <1236030106.5330.1553.camel@laptop>
Date:	Mon, 02 Mar 2009 22:41:46 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, me@...ipebalbi.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
	felipe.balbi@...ia.com, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
	sameo@...nedhand.com
Subject: Re: lockdep and threaded IRQs (was: ...)

On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 13:37 -0800, David Brownell wrote:

> > How so?, its the natural extension of that work.
> 
> Not the work to shrink the amount of time IRQ latencies
> by shrinking the amount of time IRQs are disabled by
> IRQ handlers.

Ugh, that's done by pushing work out of the hardirq context, not by
doing silly things like enabling irqs from hardirq context.

> > > > we should simply always disable interrupts for 
> > > > interrupt handlers.
> > > 
> > > That would be why you have refused to fix the bug
> > > in lockdep, whereby it forcibly enables that flag?
> > > 
> > > I've been wondering for some months now why you've
> > > left that bug unfixed.
> > 
> > Because running irq handlers with irqs enabled it plain silly.
> 
> Not if you have hardware-prioritized IRQs, which are
> fairly common in some environments ... handling an IRQ
> for high priority device A needn't interfere with the
> handler for lower priority device B, and the system
> overall can work better.
> 
> Not if you need to shrink IRQ latencies by minimizing
> irqs-off critical sections everywhere ... IRQ handlers
> being common offenders for keeping IRQs off too long.
> 
> Not when IRQs can be disabled selectively around the
> real critical sections ... so drivers can leave IRQs
> enabled except in those brief sections.

Yeah, and who gets to debug the stack overflow?

Hardware with irq prio levels can do a prio mask and use a stack per
prio level.

--
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/