linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] i2c: core: run atomic i2c xfer when !preemptible

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:   Mon, 27 Mar 2023 18:23:24 +0200
From:   Benjamin Bara <bbara93@...il.com>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, Benjamin Bara <bbara93@...il.com>,
        Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
        dmitry.osipenko@...labora.com, jonathanh@...dia.com,
        richard.leitner@...ux.dev, treding@...dia.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
        Benjamin Bara <benjamin.bara@...data.com>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] i2c: core: run atomic i2c xfer when !preemptible

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 at 16:54, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org> wrote:
> For the !CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT case, preemptible() is defined 0. So,
> don't we lose the irqs_disabled() check in that case?

Thanks for the feedback!
PREEMPT_COUNT is selected by PREEMPTION, so I guess in the case of
!PREEMPT_COUNT,
we should be atomic (anyways)?