| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 16:04:41 +0930 From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> To: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com> Cc: "Langsdorf, Mark" <mark.langsdorf@....com>, Eric Sesterhenn <eric.sesterhenn@...xperts.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Warning during suspend with MS-7310 mainboard On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 08:47:02 am Dave Jones wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 08:37:22AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > > Yeah, I was confused: my patch changed set_cpus_allowed_ptr() to > > an smp_call_function. If the latter is a bad idea with irqs disabled, the > > former certainly was... > > Right, the only reason reverting your change 'fixes' the problem is > that we don't have a BUG() in set_cpus_allowed_ptr to check for interrupts > being disabled. Exactly. > hmm, does adding an equivalent check make sense? > cpufreq seemed to cope just fine when we used set_cpus_allowed_ptr, > but we might have just got lucky. As we were suspending in this path, > interaction from the scheduler is minimal. Other callers might not > be so lucky? If someone who knows the code can verify that, in fact, we are always on the right CPU, we can eliminate it altogether. I'm not happy with a "probably get lucky" scenario... Rusty. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists