linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/2] genriq: Avoid summation loops for /proc/stat

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.2.21.1901301857350.1622@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Wed, 30 Jan 2019 18:58:32 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] genriq: Avoid summation loops for /proc/stat

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 01/30/2019 07:31 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > --- a/include/linux/irqdesc.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/irqdesc.h
> > @@ -65,9 +65,10 @@ struct irq_desc {
> >  	unsigned int		core_internal_state__do_not_mess_with_it;
> >  	unsigned int		depth;		/* nested irq disables */
> >  	unsigned int		wake_depth;	/* nested wake enables */
> > +	unsigned int		tot_count;
> >  	unsigned int		irq_count;	/* For detecting broken IRQs */
> > -	unsigned long		last_unhandled;	/* Aging timer for unhandled count */
> >  	unsigned int		irqs_unhandled;
> > +	unsigned long		last_unhandled;	/* Aging timer for unhandled count */
> >  	atomic_t		threads_handled;
> >  	int			threads_handled_last;
> >  	raw_spinlock_t		lock;
> 
> Just one minor nit. Why you want to move the last_unhandled down one
> slot? There were 5 int's before. Adding one more will just fill the
> padding hole. Moving down the last_unhandled will probably leave 4-byte
> holes in both above and below it assuming that raw_spinlock_t is 4 bytes.

Unintentional wreckage. Will undo. Thanks for spotting it.

Thanks,

	tglx