linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH REPOST] irq_poll: Add local_bh_disable() in cpu

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: <YgZ8Jqu95drJFuBK@linutronix.de>
Date:   Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:09:26 +0100
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH REPOST] irq_poll: Add local_bh_disable() in cpu_dead
 notifier

On 2022-02-10 22:34:32 [-0800], Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 01:33:39PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > You need to handle the pending softirqs. If you don't handle them
> > immediately or in a deterministic say (like on IRQ exit) then they will
> > be handled at a random point.
> 
> Yes.  Just like regular interrupts.

With the exception that this one was already handled and should be
handled and not delayed until the next interrupt.
And as I said, on NO_HZ you get a warning about unhandled soft-irqs if
the CPU goes idle.

Sebastian