linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2] x86: Select HARDIRQS_SW

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:   Thu, 12 Mar 2020 13:06:03 +0100
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:     linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] x86: Select HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND on x86

Hi,

On 3/11/20 11:09 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com> writes:
>> On 3/11/20 10:31 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com> writes:
>>>>> I just need to stare at the legacy PIC and the virt stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Also maybe we should add a Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org ??? This seems like
>>>>>> somewhat a big change for that but it does solve some real issues...
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. Let me stare at the couple of weird irqchips which might get
>>>>> surprised. I'll teach them not to do that :)
>>>>
>>>> I know that you are very busy, still I'm wondering is there any progress
>>>> on this ?
>>>
>>> Bah. That fell through the cracks, but actually I looked at this due to
>>> the PCI-E AER wreckage. So yes, this is fine, but we want:
>>>
>>>    https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200306130623.590923677@linutronix.de
>>>    https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200306130623.684591280@linutronix.de
>>>
>>> if we want to backport this to stable.
>>
>> So far I have seen a few, but not a lot of devices which need this, so
>> I'm not 100% sure what to do here.
>>
>> Do you consider this change safe / suitable for stable if those 2 patches
>> are backported and applied first?
> 
> I think so. The two patches are on my list for backports anyway, but I
> wanted to give them some time to simmer.

OK, I'll submit this patch for stable then once your backports have landed.

Regards,

Hans