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:	Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:13:59 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC:	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	"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 01/11/2010 03:10 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> writes:
> 
>> On 01/11/2010 02:53 PM, Suresh Siddha 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?
>>>
>>> In irqinit.c, we statically pre-assign the per-cpu vector to irq
>>> mappings (vector_irq) for all the legacy IRQ vectors. Similarly irq_cfg
>>> is statically initialized for legacy IRQ's in io_apic.c. So we won't be
>>> able to use this space for anything else.
>>>
>>
>> What enforces that, though?  The used_vector bitmap?  In the past it was
>> enforced simply by being < FIRST_DEVICE_VECTOR.
> 
> I believe historically it was simply that we did not loop over that set of vectors,
> in assign_irq_vector.
> 

Yes, that's what I said.  My question was to Suresh what enforces that
in the case of his patch, which moves the legacy range into the middle
of the device vectors.

	-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/