linux-kernel - Re: [patch 32/55] x86/irq: Restructure fixup

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: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1706202327010.2157@nanos>
Date:   Tue, 20 Jun 2017 23:28:39 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [patch 32/55] x86/irq: Restructure fixup_irqs()

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 01:37:32AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > @@ -441,18 +440,27 @@ void fixup_irqs(void)
> >  
> >  	for_each_irq_desc(irq, desc) {
> >  		const struct cpumask *affinity;
> > -		int break_affinity = 0;
> > -		int set_affinity = 1;
> > +		bool break_affinity = false;
> >  
> >  		if (!desc)
> >  			continue;
> > -		if (irq == 2)
> > -			continue;
> >  
> >  		/* interrupt's are disabled at this point */
> >  		raw_spin_lock(&desc->lock);
> >  
> >  		data = irq_desc_get_irq_data(desc);
> > +		chip = irq_data_get_irq_chip(data);
> > +		/*
> > +		 * The interrupt descriptor might have been cleaned up
> > +		 * already, but it is not yet removed from the radix
> > +		 * tree. If the chip does not have an affinity setter,
> > +		 * nothing to do here.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (!chip !chip->irq_set_affinity) {
> > +			raw_spin_unlock(&desc->lock);
> > +			continue;
> > +		}
> 
> A bit of a moot point since the very next patch deletes all of this,
> but found this broken 'if' condition when compiling one at a time,
> missing the '&&'.

Hmm, How did I fatfinger that one after booting it?

Yes, the patch is kinda moot, but I wanted to verify that shifting the
logic around does not break any of the hotplug stress tests, so that the
next step becomes less risky.

Thanks,

	tglx