linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 3/6] irq: bypass: Extend skeleton for ARM forwarding control

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: <559ABDC5.3060200@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 6 Jul 2015 19:41:25 +0200
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	Eric Auger <eric.auger@...aro.org>, eric.auger@...com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, christoffer.dall@...aro.org,
	marc.zyngier@....com, alex.williamson@...hat.com,
	avi.kivity@...il.com, mtosatti@...hat.com, feng.wu@...el.com,
	joro@...tes.org, b.reynal@...tualopensystems.com
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 3/6] irq: bypass: Extend skeleton for ARM forwarding
 control



On 06/07/2015 19:09, Eric Auger wrote:
>> > The good thing is that this helps a bit forming a lock hierarchy across
>> > the subsystems, for example irq bypass mutex outside vfio_platform_irq
>> > spinlock, because you cannot have a spinlock inside the mutex.  I think
>> > that all of your six callbacks are fine.
> arghh, no that's wrong then. I have plenty of them in the KVM/arm vgic
> part :-(

I checked and it's right...

/me rereads

AAAARGH.  You cannot have a mutex inside a spinlock.  What you're doing
is fine.

Paolo
--
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/