linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] irq/affinity: Fix a possible breakage

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: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1812050926380.16874@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Wed, 5 Dec 2018 09:28:34 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Dou Liyang <douliyangs@...il.com>
cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        kashyap.desai@...adcom.com,
        shivasharan.srikanteshwara@...adcom.com, sumit.saxena@...adcom.com,
        ming.lei@...hat.com, hch@....de, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
        douliyang1@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] irq/affinity: Fix a possible breakage

On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, Dou Liyang wrote:

> In case of irq_default_affinity != cpu_possible_mask, setting the affinity
> for the pre/post vectors to irq_default_affinity is a breakage.

Why so? All interrupts which are not managed get te default affinity
mask. It can be different than cpu_possible_mask, but that's what the admin
has set. The affinity of these non-managed interrupts can still be set via
/proc/... so where is the breakage?

Thanks,

	tglx