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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 5 Oct 2021 22:11:03 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <>
Cc:, Thomas Gleixner <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] irq_work: Ensure that irq_work runs in in-IRQ

On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 05:48:27PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2021-09-27 23:19:16 [+0200], To wrote:
> > The irq-work callback should be invoked in hardirq context and some
> > callbacks rely on this behaviour. At the time irq_work_run_list()
> > interrupts should be disabled but the important part is that the
> > callback is invoked from a in-IRQ context.
> > The "disabled interrupts" check can be satisfied by disabling interrupts
> > from a kworker which is not the intended context.
> > 
> > Ensure that the callback is invoked from hardirq context and not just
> > with disabled interrupts.
> As noted by lkp, this triggers from smpcfd_dying_cpu().

It lives then? I don't think I've had it report on my trees in about a
week :/

> Do we care enough to change this or should I rather drop this one?

Drop it for now I suppose...

Powered by blists - more mailing lists