linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 0/2] i8253: Fix PIT shutdown quirk on Hyper-V

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 4 Nov 2018 03:39:36 +0000
From:   Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
CC:     "virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
        <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "daniel.lezcano@...aro.org" <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        "akataria@...are.com" <akataria@...are.com>,
        "olaf@...fle.de" <olaf@...fle.de>,
        "apw@...onical.com" <apw@...onical.com>,
        vkuznets <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        "jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        "marcelo.cerri@...onical.com" <marcelo.cerri@...onical.com>,
        KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/2] i8253: Fix PIT shutdown quirk on Hyper-V

From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>  Sent: Saturday, November 3, 2018 10:22 AM
>
> > Did you consider using a static_key instead? You could set it in
> > ms_hyperv_init_platform(). This would enable you to support future
> > Hyper-V versions which don't require avoiding to set the count to zero.
> 
> Duh. Now that you say it it's more than obvious. Instead of checking for
> running on hyperv have a quirk check in that function and set it from
> hyperv. Not necessarily a static key required as this is not a fast path,
> so a simple ro_after_init marked variable is good enough
> 
> Michael, sorry for guiding you down the wrong road. Juergens idea is much
> better.

Thanks.  Will send a new patch set shortly.

> 
> If you redo that, could you please make sure, that your mail series is
> properly threaded? i.e. the 1..n/n mails contain a
> 
> 	 Reference: <message_id_of_0/n>
> 
Argh.  Caused by a one-time foul up.  I'll make sure not to do that again.

Michael