linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] arm64: Allow the rescheduling IPI to bypass irq

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201110130348.GK2594@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 10 Nov 2020 14:03:48 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Cc:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        LAK <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] arm64: Allow the rescheduling IPI to bypass
 irq_enter/exit

On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 10:30:50AM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote:

> Now, I'd like to pen exactly why we think it's okay to forgo irq_{enter,
> exit}() for that one IRQ and not any other.

Thomas already said a few words on this, but basically scheduler_ipi()
is a NOP (*almost*), the IPI has no body. All it does is tickle the
return-from-interrupt path. So any setup and tear-down done for the
non-existing body is a waste of time.