linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] More RCU vs idle fixes

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: <20201124142303.GF3092@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 24 Nov 2020 15:23:03 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     rafael@...nel.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        x86@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, will@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] More RCU vs idle fixes

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 03:18:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 02:47:27PM +0100, Sven Schnelle wrote:
> > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:
> > 
> > > Both arm64 and s390 are tripping over arch_cpu_idle() RCU,tracing,lockdep
> > > interaction. While looking at that I also found fail in inte_idle.
> > >
> > > Please consider for this cycle.
> > 
> > Is anyone taking this patchset?
> 
> I think I'll stuff it in x86/urgent for lack of a better place.

Ah, locking/urgent might be a better place I suppose.