linux-kernel - Re: [patch] x86, apic: use 0x20 for the IRQ_MOVE_CLEANUP

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:	Fri, 8 Jan 2010 18:50:29 -0800
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"ebiederm@...ssion.com" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] x86, apic: use 0x20 for the IRQ_MOVE_CLEANUP_VECTOR 
	instead of 0x1f

On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 6:19 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:

> However, my most serious concern with this patch is that there is a
> fairly significant change due to this patch, which is that the legacy
> IRQ vectors now fall *inside* the FIRST_DEVICE_VECTOR range.  This isn't
> a bad thing -- in fact, it is fundamentally the right thing to do
> especially once we consider platforms which *don't* have the legacy IRQs
> -- but it makes me scared of unexpected behavior changes as a result.
> If you feel confident that that is not the case, could you outline why
> it shouldn't be a problem?
>

if it is not used by ioapic instead of legacy,
do we need to re assign irq0 to irq15 domain from all cpus to
apic->vector_allocation_domain()?

YH
--
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/