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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:55:10 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> CC: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, "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 28/08/14 10:50, Will Deacon wrote: > 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. > tglx just confirmed that interrupt controller implementation using force flag must use online_cpumask. So converting to false should be fine. So once rmk agrees for ARM, we can apply this revert and change to false for ARM64 also. Regards, Sudeep -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists