linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] KVM fixes for 3.5-rc6

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:	Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:53:45 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] KVM fixes for 3.5-rc6

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> We already discussed to let the irq chip (in this case MSI) tell the
> core that it does not need the extra oneshot handling. That way the
> code which requests an threaded irq with the NULL primary handler
> works on both MSI and normal interrupts.

So I  don't think your patch is quite right.

If you want to clear the IRQF_ONESHOT for MSI irq's (and other ones
where the interrupt controller is fundamentally ONESHOT), I think you
should do it a few lines higher up - *before* you check the "does the
IRQF_ONESHOT mask match other shared interrupts"?

Now, irq sharing presumably doesn't happen with MSI, but there's
nothing fundamentally wrong with message-based irq schemes that have
shared interrupt handlers.

I think. Hmm?

                  Linus
--
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/