linux-kernel - Re: [GIT pull] irq fixes for 4.8

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFymqNmPa3VAx_o9bsVmEK1T=yNKgyetgbAXTp+eqZ6C3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 18 Sep 2016 11:15:22 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT pull] irq fixes for 4.8

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 1:05 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> Boris Brezillon (2):
>       genirq: Provide irq_gc_{lock_irqsave,unlock_irqrestore}() helpers

This seems somewhat questionable.

The non-irqsafe versions of these functions have specialized non-SMP
versions for them. The new ones don't.

I pulled it, because I think it's actually the old versions that are
garbage (the locking should become a no-op on UP regardless - except
for the preemption issue which I don't see why it wouldn't be real),
but I think this is inconsistent and should be fixed (or a comment
added about why it is ok).

              Linus