linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fix BUG using smp_processor_id() in touch_nmi_watchdog and touch_softlockup

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]

Message-ID: <AANLkTikdng247Fct0ANXiitC3ja98_ee3-fUVDGraEwo@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:16:29 +0800
From:	Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix BUG using smp_processor_id() in touch_nmi_watchdog
 and touch_softlockup_watchdog

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Frederic Weisbecker
<fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> If preemption is disabled and you deal with the current cpu,
> then please use __get_cpu_var, it makes the code more
> readable:
>
>
> void touch_softlockup_watchdog(void)
> {
>        preempt_disable();
>        __(watchdog_touch_ts) = 0;
>        preempt_enable();
> }

Why not use __raw_get_cpu_var() instead?
You know adding preempt protection in touch_softlockup_watchdog()
just suppress the warning. Am I missing something?

Thanks,
Yong
--
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/