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]

Date:   Wed, 12 Dec 2018 00:27:08 +0800
From:   Dou Liyang <douliyangs@...il.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
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

Hi tglx,
on 2018/12/5 16:28, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 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?

I misunderstood it. please ignore this, ;-)

Thanks,
	dou