linux-kernel - Re: Question on irq autoprobe

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CACVXFVPLacVi-tiurDBKsH-Y_nRv9r89vr0i7yJFn9croQc9WA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 27 Sep 2012 12:08:03 +0800
From:	Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
To:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: Question on irq autoprobe

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I see the below comments on probe_irq_off:
>
>      *  BUGS: When used in a module (which arguably shouldn't happen)
>      *  nothing prevents two IRQ probe callers from overlapping. The
>      *  results of this are non-optimal.
>      */
>
> But from the code of probe_irq_on and probe_irq_off, the mutex of
> probing_active is held during the whole irq probe procedure, so
> I don't understand why the above said that 'nothing prevents two
> IRQ probe callers from overlapping", and why isn't the mutex of
> probing_active enough to avoid the overlapping?

Thomas, I really appreciate that if you may clarify the question, :-)


Thank,
-- 
Ming Lei
--
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/