linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being broadcast sources

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 Sep 2013 10:25:57 +0200
From:	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:	Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being
 broadcast sources

On 09/12/2013 10:30 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Soren Brinkmann wrote:
>> From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
>>
>> On most ARM systems the per-cpu clockevents are truly per-cpu in
>> the sense that they can't be controlled on any other CPU besides
>> the CPU that they interrupt. If one of these clockevents were to
>> become a broadcast source we will run into a lot of trouble
>> because the broadcast source is enabled on the first CPU to go
>> into deep idle (if that CPU suffers from FEAT_C3_STOP) and that
>> could be a different CPU than what the clockevent is interrupting
>> (or even worse the CPU that the clockevent interrupts could be
>> offline).
>>
>> Theoretically it's possible to support per-cpu clockevents as the
>> broadcast source but so far we haven't needed this and supporting
>> it is rather complicated. Let's just deny the possibility for now
>> until this becomes a reality (let's hope it never does!).
> 
> Well, we can't do it this way. There are globally accessible clock
> event devices which deliver only to cpu0. So the mask check might be
> causing failure here.
> 
> Just add a feature flag CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU to the clock event
> device and check for it.

It sounds probably more understandable than dealing with the cpumasks.

I am wondering if this is semantically opposed to
http://lwn.net/Articles/566270/ ?

[PATCH V3 0/6] cpuidle/ppc: Enable broadcast support for deep idle states

  -- Daniel

-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

  * English - detected
  * English
  * French

  * English
  * French

 <javascript:void(0);>
--
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/