linux-kernel - Re: [rt-patch 3/3] arm, KVM: convert vgic_irq.irq_lock to raw_spinlock

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: <1532957682.30205.42.camel@gmx.de>
Date:   Mon, 30 Jul 2018 15:34:42 +0200
From:   Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [rt-patch 3/3] arm, KVM: convert vgic_irq.irq_lock to
 raw_spinlock_t

On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 11:27 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> The thing missing from the Changelog is the analysis that all the work
> done under these locks is indeed properly bounded and cannot cause
> excessive latencies.

True, I have no idea what worst case hold times are.  Nothing poked me
dead in the eye when looking around in completely alien code, nor did
cyclictest inspire concern running on box with no base of comparison.

I do know that latency is now < infinity, a modest improvement ;-)

	-Mike