linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86, efi: Don't recursively acquire rtc

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]

Date:	Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:18:17 +0300
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
CC:	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>, hpa@...ux.intel.com,
	mjg@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, efi: Don't recursively acquire rtc_lock

On 08/08/2011 04:40 PM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 18:04 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >
> >  Virtual platforms will have to take care of the serialization in the
> >  host anyway, so the guest side implementation of getwallclock et al
> >  is entirely unaffected.
>
> Ah, OK, that's the important part. I didn't realise that rtc_lock isn't
> actually required by any other code. In which case, yes, it completely
> makes sense to push the locking of rtc_lock down into the
> implementations that actually need it.
>
> It'd be great if I could get some ACK's from the virtualization guys.

Ack (for that aspect).

-- 
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/