linux-kernel - Re: start_kernel(): bug: interrupts were enabled early

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:	Thu, 01 Apr 2010 09:31:27 +1100
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rabin Vincent <rabin@....in>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, hpa@...or.com,
	penberg@...helsinki.fi, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: start_kernel(): bug: interrupts were enabled early

On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 13:47 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > perhaps the second one isn't needed?  Perhaps no architecture
> requires
> > that local interrupts be disabled across the above initialisations?
>         
> spin_unlock_irq from arm is different from other archs?

No, it's not, it will enable IRQs and thats illegal to do so early
during boot. We've been over that one again and again, the problem is
that people want to keep using that instead of irqsave/restore because
it's a nano-optimisation on x86... oh well...

Cheers,
Ben.


--
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/