linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: Distinguish TLB shootdown interrupts from other functions call interrupts

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: <50653A7A.1020806@zytor.com>
Date:	Thu, 27 Sep 2012 22:49:46 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
CC:	Tomoki Sekiyama <tomoki.sekiyama.qu@...achi.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yrl.pp-manager.tt@...achi.com,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Distinguish TLB shootdown interrupts from other
 functions call interrupts

On 09/27/2012 12:02 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
>
> Peter:
>
> Maybe the patch doesn't looks perfect for this issue.
> So I am wondering if the following patch is better, if we don't care the irq_tlb
> was counted again in irq_call?
>

Tomoki-san's patch looked sane to me, I should just apply it.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/