linux-kernel - Re: [tip:irq/genirq] genirq: assert that irq handlers are indeed running in hardirq context

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: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0904101156360.21577@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:57:25 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@...il.com>
cc:	mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:irq/genirq] genirq: assert that irq handlers are indeed
 running in hardirq context

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Eric Miao wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> > Commit-ID:  044d408409cc4e1bc75c886e27ca85c270db104c
> > Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/044d408409cc4e1bc75c886e27ca85c270db104c
> > Author:     Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> > AuthorDate: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 16:13:32 +0100
> > Commit:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> > CommitDate: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 00:05:45 +0100
> >
> > genirq: assert that irq handlers are indeed running in hardirq context
> >
> > Make sure the genirq layer handlers are indeed running handlers
> > in hardirq context. That is the genirq expectation and doing
> > anything else is broken.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> > LKML-Reference: <1236006812.5330.632.camel@...top>
> > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> >
> 
> OK, now this gave me the warning below and it looks resend_irqs()
> and resend_tasklet are somehow found guilty and doing wrong, as
> the comment of this commit suggested, yet I'm not sure if this makes
> sense:

No, it doesn't. We didn't think about the resend tasklet. I'm going to
fix it.

Thanks,

	tglx