linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Remove setup_percpu_irq() & remove_percpu

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: <20200419144638.ysghqzklebkeer4z@afzalpc>
Date:   Sun, 19 Apr 2020 20:16:38 +0530
From:   afzal mohammed <afzal.mohd.ma@...il.com>
To:     Thomas Bogendoerfer <tbogendoerfer@...e.de>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Remove setup_percpu_irq() & remove_percpu_irq

Hi Thomas Gleixner,

On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 09:34:07PM +0530, afzal mohammed wrote:

> While doing the removal of setup_irq(), it was observed that
> setup_percpu_irq() also can be removed similarly by replacing it w/
> request_percpu_irq(), which does allocate memory. In the initial
> setup_irq() removal cover letters [1], it was mentioned that
> setup_percpu_irq() is untouched.
> 
> After removing setup_irq(), it does not look good to let live
> setup_percpu_irq(), especially since it being a low hanging fruit. Hence
> replace setup_percpu_irq() by it's allocator equivalent.
> request_percpu_irq() cannot be used since all the users need to pass
> IRQF_TIMER flag, which it would not allow. Thus it's variant,
> __request_percpu_irq() is used.
> 
> In addition to removing setup_percpu_irq() definition,
> remove_percpu_irq(), unused, is also removed.

Do you feel that this series adds value ?, if not, i will abandon this
series.

Thanks for your guidance w.r.t setup_irq() removal.

Regards
afzal