linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree

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: <20140118215431.GO11314@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Sat, 18 Jan 2014 22:54:31 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree

On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:14:57AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> Could something like this work?
> >>
> >> 	local_irq_enable();
> >> 	mwait_idle_with_hints(0,0);
> >>

> This means an interrupt window is open and we can take an interrupt
> between checking need_resched and the MWAIT, which couldn't happen with
> __sti_mwait().
> 
> Are we sure that is actually safe?

current_set_polling_and_test() vs resched_task() should be good that
way, but I've got a terrible head-ache today so don't rely on anything
much I say.
--
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/