linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [x86, msr]: execute on the correct CPU subset

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: <4A6E1222.5010709@zytor.com>
Date:	Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:46:26 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>
CC:	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [x86, msr]: execute on the correct CPU subset

Borislav Petkov wrote:
>  
>  	preempt_disable();
> -	/*
> -	 * FIXME: handle the CPU we're executing on separately for now until
> -	 * smp_call_function_many has been fixed to not skip it.
> -	 */
>  	this_cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
> -	smp_call_function_single(this_cpu, __rdmsr_on_cpu, &rv, 1);
>  
> -	smp_call_function_many(mask, __rdmsr_on_cpu, &rv, 1);
> +	if (cpumask_test_cpu(this_cpu, mask))
> +		msr_func(&rv);
> +
> +	smp_call_function_many(mask, msr_func, &rv, 1);
>  	preempt_enable();
>  }

Any reason not to use get_cpu() ... put_cpu() instead?

	-hpa
--
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/