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]

Date:	Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:04:39 -0700
From:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	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, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: lockdep and threaded IRQs (was: ...)

On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i think you severely over-estimate the importance and ratio of 
> drivers that enable irqs within irq handlers. (Nor does anyone 
> want to break them really - we want to have a sane default and 
> we want to flag the broken cases as broken.)

For the record, I've been running for some time now
with a patch that issues a warning for each IRQ that
lockdep forces to use IRQF_DISABLED.

On my x86 systems, pretty much every driver triggers
that warning.  Which makes me think maybe that shoe
is being placed on the wrong foot:  use of IRQF_DISABLED
is the *EXCEPTION* not the rule.  At least on one major
Linux platform...


--
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/