linux-kernel - raw_spinlock

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4C960B78.4010804@redhat.com>
Date:	Sun, 19 Sep 2010 15:09:12 +0200
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: raw_spinlock_t rules

  Some time ago, the i8259 emulation code in kvm was changed to use 
raw_spinlock_t, as it was called in a preempt_disable() and 
local_irq_disable() context, which doesn't work with preemptible 
spinlocks used with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT.

In Linux 2.6.37, the spinlock will no longer be taken in these contexts, 
so I'd like to change it to a normal spinlock_t.  However, it is still 
taken in a spin_lock_irq() context.

Is it okay to do this change?  I figured since spin_lock_irq() is part 
of the spinlock infrastructure it might to the right thing.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/