linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/10] x86: use vector_desc instead of vector

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, 22 Mar 2010 15:16:30 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
cc:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] x86: use vector_desc instead of vector_irq

> >> -typedef int vector_irq_t[NR_VECTORS];
> >> -DECLARE_PER_CPU(vector_irq_t, vector_irq);
> >> -extern void setup_vector_irq(int cpu);
> >> +typedef struct irq_desc *vector_desc_t[NR_VECTORS];
> >
> >   Why do we need that typedef ? Please use plain struct irq_desc *
> 
> Well at least originally DECLARE_PER_CPU chocked when given a complex
> type. Does:
> DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct irq_desc *[NR_VECTORS], vector_desc);
> work?

Hmm, I thought that was fixed, but I might be wrong as usual.
 
> 
> >> +DECLARE_PER_CPU(vector_desc_t, vector_desc);
> >> +extern void setup_vector_desc(int cpu);
> > ...
> >>  void destroy_irq(unsigned int irq)
> >>  {
> >>  	unsigned long flags;
> >> +	struct irq_desc *desc;
> >> +	struct irq_cfg *cfg;
> >>  
> >>  	dynamic_irq_cleanup_keep_chip_data(irq);
> >>  
> >>  	free_irte(irq);
> >>  	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&vector_lock, flags);
> >> -	__clear_irq_vector(irq, get_irq_chip_data(irq));
> >> +	desc = irq_to_desc(irq);
> >> +	cfg = desc->chip_data;
> >> +	__clear_irq_vector(desc, cfg);
> >
> > 	__clear_irq_vector(desc, desc->chip_data);
> >
> >  should be sufficient, right ?
> 
> You want to deliberately loose a modicum of type safety?

I really have a hard time to see how assigning a void pointer to a
struct irq_cfg pointer is anymore type safe than using the void
pointer as for the function argument right away. 

> >>  		if (printk_ratelimit())
> >> -			pr_emerg("%s: %d.%d No irq handler for vector (irq %d)\n",
> >> -				__func__, smp_processor_id(), vector, irq);
> >> +			pr_emerg("%s: %d.%d No irq handler for vector\n",
> >
> >   That printk is confusing. It's not lacking an irq handler. The
> >   vector is simply not assigned.
> 
> Long evolution.  Do you have a suggestion of better wording?

You mean hysterical raisins. Ok, how about:

    pr_emerg("irq: %d.d irq vector not assigned\n", ...);

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/