linux-kernel - Re: Question about x86/mm/gup.c's use of disabled interrupts

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: <49C3B886.8080408@goop.org>
Date:	Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:38:46 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: Question about x86/mm/gup.c's use of disabled interrupts

Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> Ah, interesting.  So disabling interrupts prevents the RCU free from 
>> happening, and non-atomic pte fetching is a non-issue.  So it doesn't 
>> address the PAE side of the problem.
>>     
>
> This would be rcu_sched, correct?
>   

I guess?  Whatever it is that ends up calling all the rcu callbacks 
after the idle.  A cpu with disabled interrupts can't go through idle, 
right?  Or is there an explicit way to hold off rcu?

    J
--
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/