linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] generic-ipi: fix deadlock in __smp_call_function

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: <20100926084233.GA28809@elte.hu>
Date:	Sun, 26 Sep 2010 10:42:33 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] generic-ipi: fix deadlock in __smp_call_function_single


* Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> Maybe.  Or maybe it papers over a scheduler bug by gratuitously adding 
> additional code which no present callsites actually need.

Hm, indeed.

We now have the scheduler bug fixed upstream. Do we really need this 
patch?

> The patch didn't update the __smp_call_function_single() kerneldoc. 
> Compare it with smp_call_function_single() and note the subtle 
> difference between "a specific CPU" and the now incorrect "on another 
> CPU".

In any case this feedback didnt get addressed AFAICS.

	Ingo
--
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/