linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH RESEND] x86/fixup_irq: Clean the offlining CPU from the irq affinity mask

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: <27240C0AC20F114CBF8149A2696CBE4A18A494@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 26 Sep 2012 08:56:20 +0000
From:	"Liu, Chuansheng" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
To:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC:	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH RESEND] x86/fixup_irq: Clean the offlining CPU from the
 irq affinity mask

> A return value of 0 and 1 are acceptable. So this check isn't correct.
> 
> Regards,
> Srivatsa S. Bhat
> 
Which case value 1 is acceptable, could you share? Thanks.

> OMG, why did you drop the other hunk which cleared the cpu *before*
> invoking ->irq_set_affinity()? IMO, altering irq affinity involves more work
> than just altering the mask; that's why you have that ->irq_set_affinity()
> function. So, if you alter the mask *after* calling ->irq_set_affinity(),
> its not right..
Sorry the mistake, will update.