linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] specific do_timer

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: <20111130181318.38f4659d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:13:18 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] specific do_timer_cpu value for nohz off mode

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:07:27 -0600 Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com> wrote:

> > And the whole thing is racy, isn't it?  The "new" CPU can go offline a
> > nanosecond after we performed that test, so why perform it at all?
> 
> See my email concerning the panic in cpu_online().

That doesn't address my question.

What's the point in checking cpu_online() when we have no locks to
prevent the online map from changing?

What happens if this cpu goes offline immediately after that check has
passed?

--
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/