linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/2] genirq: Run irq handlers with interrupts disabled

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1270243876.5109.527.camel@twins>
Date:	Fri, 02 Apr 2010 23:31:16 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] genirq: Run irq handlers with interrupts disabled

On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 23:09 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Fri 2010-04-02 22:42:51, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed 2010-03-31 13:16:37, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > Why not simply force IRQF_DISABLED for all MSI interrupts. That still
> > > > > > allows nesting for non MSI ones, but it limits the chance of throwing
> > > > > > up reasonably well. That's a two liner.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Can you please test whether it resolves the issue at hand ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sorry for the late answer. Got confirmation that this patch
> > > > > fixes the test case. Thanks.
> > > > 
> > > > Ok, I'll push it linus wards and cc stable. I think thats the least
> > > > intrusive safe bet we can have right now.
> > > 
> > > stable? I'd say thats way too intrusive for -stable...
> > 
> > So we better let the possible stack overruns unaddressed ?
> 
> -stable should have no regressions, first and foremost. And this is
> pretty certain to introduce some, at least on low-powered system with
> serial ports.
> 
> So yes, it is probably better to let the possible stack overruns
> unaddressed. We have lived with them for 15 years or so...
> 
> (Alternatively, just make the irq stacks bigger? Or just take Andi's
> patch, which solves the overruns, and only introduces latency
> regressions when it would otherwise crash?)

You've got serial ports with MSI interrupts?
--
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/