linux-kernel - Re: [tip:irq/core] genirq: Flush the irq thread on synchronization

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.2.02.1203152017550.2466@ionos>
Date:	Thu, 15 Mar 2012 20:27:33 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>
cc:	Ido Yariv <ido@...ery.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:irq/core] genirq: Flush the irq thread on synchronization

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 04:07:30AM -0700, tip-bot for Ido Yariv wrote:
> > +
> > +	if (WARN_ON(desc->threads_oneshot & action->thread_mask))
> > +		irq_finalize_oneshot(desc, action, true);
> 
> This check is called when the action is already removed in __free_irq() and no
> desc->lock is held. Hence, a concurrent __setup_irq() could reallocate the very
> same bit in the meantime. So neither irq_finalize_oneshot() nor the warning
> are legitimate here.

I put the WARN_ONs there for paranoia reasons, but yes, you are right
they are more confusing than helpful. We really know that everything
has been cleaned up.

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/