linux-kernel - Re: [tip:x86/irq] x86: apic: Fix mismerge, add arch_probe_nr

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:	Sat, 27 Feb 2010 02:12:34 -0800
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/irq] x86: apic: Fix mismerge, add arch_probe_nr_irqs() again

Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> writes:

>> Ingo do you have any idea what NR_IRQS or nr_irqs were/are on
>> that failing machine?
>
> Sorry, not - and the merge window doesnt leave much time to revisit the 
> problem right now.
>
> But the failures were very real and 100% caused by this: they resulted in 
> non-existent /dev/sda* nodes and resulting fsck failure by rc.

I have looked it over a second time and I have convinced myself
that arch_probe_nr_irqs will in the worst case reduce nr_irqs,
and never increase it beyond NR_IRQS.  So this revert (keeping
arch_probe_nr_irqs) is safe.

It makes little sense that a larger nr_irqs would be a problem,
but clearly there are assumptions somewhere that we still need
to remove.

Eric
--
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/