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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 16:17:00 +0100 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Jonathan Neuschäfer <j.neuschaefer@....net>, Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@...neltoast.com>, Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] random: set fast pool count to zero in cpuhp teardown On 2022-02-14 16:10:36 [+0100], Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > Hi Sebastian, Hi Jason, > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 4:06 PM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior > <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote: > > But you acked my question regarding boot-up? So the teardown callback > > won't happen during boot-up. > > I'd like to do only one method here, so we can set those fields in > startup, provided it happens early enough. > > > So I think it seems better to keep it before CPUHP_TIMERS_PREPARE, but > > > do it on startup rather than teardown. Seem reasonable? Would that > > > mean we zero out before IRQs are enabled? > > I would only zero it if the upper-most bit is there. > > I still don't quite understand: why can't we just unconditionally > zero, always, before CPUHP_TIMERS_PREPARE? If you have a rollback before CPUHP_TIMERS_PREPARE you don't notice it and your worker may have skipped this work because it run on the wrong CPU. Also, I *think* that if you happen to have 64 interrupts between CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_IDLE … CPUHP_AP_WORKQUEUE_ONLINE then the scheduled worker is unbound and may run on the "wrong" CPU. > > And then have another one after > > Two of them seems a little bit out of hand in complexity here... Let's > just find one phase where we can simply set variables without too much > fiddly logic. I'll send a v+1 of what I have in mind for the startup > path. Oki. > Jason Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists