linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RT] tty: serial: st-asc: Make the locking RT aware

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: <99a6d117-4998-fe37-5e32-ef773597e8e9@st.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Mar 2017 08:43:50 +0000
From:   Lionel DEBIEVE <lionel.debieve@...com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:     "linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "bigeasy@...utronix.de" <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Patrice CHOTARD <patrice.chotard@...com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT] tty: serial: st-asc: Make the locking RT aware

Just to agree with Thomas.

Do you want me to resend the patch without RT tag?

BR,
Lionel


On 03/21/2017 09:15 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 19:51:47 +0100 (CET)
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Mar 2017, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>>>   	/*
>>>>   	 * Disable interrupts so we don't get the IRQ line
>>>> bouncing
>>> I'm nervous about the above comment, which in full is:
>>>
>>> 	/*
>>> 	 * Disable interrupts so we don't get the IRQ line bouncing
>>> 	 * up and down while interrupts are disabled.
>>> 	 */
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if disabling interrupts helps on an SMP system. This
>>> patch does change what happens when port->sysrq is set. But I'm not
>>> sure we care.
>> It disables interrupts at the device level which obviously helps
>> whether on SMP or not.
>>
> OK, so this has nothing to do with the local_irq_save() that is being
> removed, which would be fine then.
>
>
> -- Steve
>