linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] proc/softirqs: only show state for online cpus

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: <4E2E7246.6050204@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:52:38 +0900
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	yong.zhang0@...il.com
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	kobayashi.kk@...s.nec.co.jp
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc/softirqs: only show state for online cpus

>> Offtopic, /proc/interrupt should be protected by get_online_cpus().
>> Otherwise the header (i.e. cpu number) and the actual statistics fields
>> can be mismatched likes following. Am I missing something?
> 
> I think you are right. The reader could be preempted by cpu hotplug.
> 
> After searching the whole tree, only s390 take cpu_hotplug.lock,
> but its usage is not currect:
> 
> arch/s390/kernel/irq.c:
> int show_interrupts(struct seq_file *p, void *v)
> {
>           get_online_cpus();
>           .........
>           put_online_cpus();
> }
> 
> Because the reader will call show_interrupts nr_irqs times.
> So get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus() should be put upper,
> maybe interrupts_open(). How do you think about it?

I agree with you.


--
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/