linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [PATCH -rt 5/5] cpufreq: get rid of get_online_cpus()/put_online

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: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1110241343130.2633@ionos>
Date:	Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:45:16 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH -rt 5/5] cpufreq: get rid of
 get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus()

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011, Yong Zhang wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:24:51AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > No sure whether it's big issue or not.
> > > Mind showing more about your concern?
> > 
> > This is probably not the only place which will run into that issue and
> > I have not much interest to patch all those sites.
> 
> If so, I think that kind of violation has been caught in mainline,
> because mainline has had CPU_DOWN_PREPARE called under
> cpu_hotplug.lock, right?
> 
> Or am I missing something?

Hmm, no. I obviously forgot that I moved it in RT :(

So yes, it should be safe. Though the question is why cpufreq does not
suffer from that that problem in mainline. I'll stare at that code
some more.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/