linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v4 1/3] lib: Restrict cpumask_local

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]

Date:   Fri, 30 Apr 2021 19:21:45 -0700
From:   Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
To:     Nitesh Lal <nilal@...hat.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "frederic@...nel.org" <frederic@...nel.org>,
        "juri.lelli@...hat.com" <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>, abelits@...vell.com,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        "bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        "mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "sfr@...b.auug.org.au" <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        "stephen@...workplumber.org" <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        "rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "jinyuqi@...wei.com" <jinyuqi@...wei.com>,
        "zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com" <zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, chris.friesen@...driver.com
Subject: Re: [Patch v4 1/3] lib: Restrict cpumask_local_spread to
 houskeeping CPUs

Nitesh Lal wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 2:21 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > Nitesh,
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 30 2021 at 12:14, Nitesh Lal wrote:
> > > Based on this analysis and the fact that with your re-work the interrupts
> > > seems to be naturally spread across the CPUs, will it be safe to revert
> > > Jesse's patch
> > >
> > > e2e64a932 genirq: Set initial affinity in irq_set_affinity_hint()
> > >
> > > as it overwrites the previously set IRQ affinity mask for some of the
> > > devices?
> >
> > That's a good question. My gut feeling says yes.
> >
> 
> Jesse do you want to send the revert for the patch?
> 
> Also, I think it was you who suggested cc'ing
> intel-wired-lan ml as that allows intel folks, to do some initial
> testing?
> If so, we can do that here (IMHO).

Patch sent here:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210501021832.743094-1-jesse.brandeburg@intel.com/T/#u

Any testing appreciated!

Jesse