linux-kernel - Re: [RFC GIT PULL] softirq: Consolidation and stack overrun fix

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: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1309201926440.4089@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:	Fri, 20 Sep 2013 19:30:14 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@....ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...isc-linux.org>,
	Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC GIT PULL] softirq: Consolidation and stack overrun fix

On Fri, 20 Sep 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:

> Now just for clarity, what do we then do with inline sofirq
> executions: on local_bh_enable() for example, or explicit calls to
> do_softirq() other than irq exit?  Should we keep the current switch
> to a different softirq stack? If we have a generic irq stack (used
> for both hard and soft) that is big enough, perhaps we can also
> switch to this generic irq stack for inline softirqs executions?
> After all there is no much point in keeping a separate stack for
> that: this result in cache misses if the inline softirq is
> interrupted by a hardirq, also inlined softirqs can't happen in
> hardirq, so there should be no much risk of overruns.

We can use the same irqstack for this because from the irqstack point
of view, thats the same as if softirqs get executed from
irq_exit().

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/