linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] kernel/sofirq: consolidate common code in __tasklet_schedule() + _hi

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: <20180216130237.2a955563@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Fri, 16 Feb 2018 13:02:37 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:     mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kernel/sofirq: consolidate common code in
 __tasklet_schedule() + _hi_

On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 18:55:09 +0100
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:

> > Should we add something like:
> > 
> > 	WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_atomic());
> > 
> > ?  
> 
> Doubt it. this_cpu_ptr() screams already with CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT.

If that's the case then, yeah I agree. I couldn't remember if
this_cpu_ptr() did that or not. I remember having an argument with
Christoph Lameter about whether or not this_cpu_* functions would
complain with preemption off, as some of the use cases were for being
used with preemption enabled. I remember there was some kind of
compromise but didn't remember exactly what that was.

-- Steve