linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] Fix the race between smp_call

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: <1331718197.18960.106.camel@twins>
Date:	Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:43:17 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Liu, Chuansheng" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Yanmin Zhang <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix the race between smp_call_function and CPU booting

On Wed, 2012-03-14 at 06:27 +0000, Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
> On the unplug case, after set the CPU to !active, we do not need IPI
> handling for the corresponding
> CPU before it is set to offline. I did not find any impact that
> limiting the smp_call_function
> just after CPU is active. 

Have a look at Alpha, it's flush_tlb_mm() can use smp_call_function(),
in the !active,online case you very much still need to tlb flush that
cpu.

The fact that it works on a limited use case on x86 doesn't say anything
much at all.
--
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/