linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/10 v2] iommu/amd: lock splitting & GFP

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]

Date:   Sat, 17 Mar 2018 22:10:13 +0100
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     Scott Wood <swood@...hat.com>
Cc:     Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10 v2] iommu/amd: lock splitting & GFP_KERNEL
 allocation

On 2018-03-17 14:49:54 [-0500], Scott Wood wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-03-16 at 21:18 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > The goal here is to make the memory allocation in get_irq_table() not
> > with disabled interrupts and having as little raw_spin_lock as
> > possible
> > while having them if the caller is also holding one (like desc->lock
> > during IRQ-affinity changes).
> > I reverted one patch one patch in the iommu while rebasing since it
> > make job easier.
> 
> If the goal is to have "as little raw_spin_lock as possible" -- and
> presumably also to avoid unnecessary complexity -- wouldn't it be
> better to leave my patch in, and drop patches 4 and 9?

9 gives me GFP_KERNEL instead atomic so no.
4 is needed I think but I could double check on Monday. 

> -Scott

Sebastian