linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq: remove IRQF

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: <1236329922.7260.127.camel@pasglop>
Date:	Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:58:42 +1100
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq: remove IRQF_DISABLED

On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 09:11 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > Would you be willing to take such a patch?
> 
> Yes - some day.
> 
> The "irq's disabled fastpath" thing has been there since pretty much day 
> one, because some irq handlers always wanted it. Making it the default 
> (and the only choice) is fine.

 .../...

I tend to disagree... (not -that- strongly but I felt like saying it
anyway :-) some archs have a reasonably nice support in the PIC for
interrupt priorities, allowing higher priority interrupts to "preempt"
lower priority ones, which this would effectively render useless.

Also, while yes, I agree, interrupts handlers -should- be short in
practice IDE is far from being the only example where this is not the
case and so we would delay timer interrupts for example for a
significant amount of time (or serial, that's another good example).

Also, we use the priority on some platform to have a high priority used
as a kind of "debugger" NMI .. ie, we don't have a real NMI but it's
better than nothing and here too, this would break it.

I don't see us having such a strong benefit from this... in fact, with
things like -rt, interrupts get moved to threads no ? Thus they
typically run with interrupts enabled... why have a different behaviour
on non-rt ? or I am missing something ? (I'm not terribly familiar with
the -rt stuff here so I probably am missing something).

Cheers,
Ben.

--
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/