linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.4-rt2] fix arm-at91-pit-remove-irq-handler-when-clock-is-unused.patch

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:	Tue, 19 Jan 2016 02:22:47 +0100
From:	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
To:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4-rt2] fix
 arm-at91-pit-remove-irq-handler-when-clock-is-unused.patch

On 18/01/2016 at 21:24:28 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote :
> > 
> > My understanding is that clockevents_exchange_device() changes the state
> > from detached to shutdown and so at that point the IRQ has never been
> > requested.
> 
> I see. So we get shutdown called twice while set_periodic was only
> called once. In that case I would suggest to have internal bookkeeping
> instead of relying on current core's behavior when it is time free the
> irq.
> 

Ok, I can do that. What should I base my patch on?

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com