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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:02:34 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Jiri Kosina <>
To:	Steven Rostedt <>
cc:	Petr Mládek <>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ring-buffer: Race when writing and swapping cpu buffer
 in parallel

On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> > I thought that IPI used NMI and thus could not be blocked if the
> > called function was reasonable. Note that ring_buffer_swap_cpu() does not take
> > any lock and can't block anywhere. I am probably too optimistic here.
> Heh, that would be a crazy system. No, IPI is a normal maskable
> interrupt. It does not use NMIs. In fact, IPI is how irq_work is
> implemented to do stuff from an NMI outside of NMI context.

Just for the sake of completness -- on x86, it is possible to send NMI IPI 
by simply doing

	apic->send_IPI_mask(mask, NMI_VECTOR);

but obviously smp_call_funcion_*() are not using this.

Jiri Kosina
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists