linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "arm64: use cpu_online_mask when using forced irq_set

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:	Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:50:50 +0100
From:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:	Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@....com>
Cc:	"byungchul.park@....com" <byungchul.park@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Revert "arm64: use cpu_online_mask when using forced
 irq_set_affinity"

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:49:54AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> 
> 
> On 28/08/14 10:38, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:30:06AM +0100, byungchul.park@....com wrote:
> >> From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
> >>
> >> This reverts commit 601c942176d8ad8334118bddb747e3720bed24f8.
> >>
> >> This patch is designed to ensure that the cpu being offlined is not
> >> present in the affinity mask. But it is a bad idea to overwrite the
> >> affinity variable with cpu_online_mask, even in case that the current
> >> affinity already includes onlined cpus.
> >>
> >> So revert this patch to replace it with another one doing exactly
> >> what it intends.
> >
> > Sudeep: what's the right way forward for this? There seems to be general
> > agreement that the existing code is broken, but a bunch of different
> > `fixes'. Can we just take a straight port of what tglx proposed for ARM?
> > (changing force to false)
> >
> 
> Yes I agree but for that we need agreement from rmk and hence I asked to
> wait till we hear from rmk. Main issue raised by rmk is if some other
> interrupt controller implementation decide not to migrate away when
> force is false(theoretically possible).

Okey doke. Whatever solution we take should be the same for arm and arm64,
so I'll leave it with you.

Will
--
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/