linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] introduce macro spin_event

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: <20090311003756.25ffa6f4@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:37:56 +0000
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:	Timur Tabi <timur@...escale.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	rdreier@...co.com, jirislaby@...il.com, peterz@...radead.org,
	will.newton@...il.com, hancockrwd@...il.com, jeremy@...p.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] introduce macro spin_event_timeout()

> A simple fact of life is that drivers -will- do that sort spinning. They
> don't always have a choice. Now do we want all drivers to do it
> differently and get it wrong (such as not having timeouts etc...) or do
> we provide a helper that has the added advantage of allowing us a lot
> more easily to audit them ?

Given the proposed helper isn't a sane default for x86 I think it needs a
good deal more work. It also hides details like that timing which is bad
sometimes.

> I think it's all benefit to move that sort of cruft to a generic helper
> like that in the long run.

Perhaps - but the helper needs to be right
--
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/