linux-kernel - Re: [ANNOUNCE] v5.14-rc4-rt4

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:   Wed, 4 Aug 2021 18:31:19 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] v5.14-rc4-rt4

On 2021-08-04 12:25:41 [-0400], Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 18:22:31 +0200
> Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
> 
> > no preemption happens here with NEED_RESCHED set.
> 
> But if interrupts were disabled, how would NEED_RESCHED be set? As soon
> as you enable interrupts, the interrupt that sets NEED_RESCHED would
> trigger the preemption.

CPU-local wake-ups just set NEED_RESCHED and wait for preempt_enable()
to do the magic. Just because the code not perform wake_up() now does
not mean it will not do so in the future. Also it is here as an example
which might be copied somewhere else.

> -- Steve

Sebastian