linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v8 01/33] x86/traps: let common_interrupt() handle IRQ_MOVE_CLEANUP

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: <SA1PR11MB673465675DA199C2C7EB1ADFA85FA@SA1PR11MB6734.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Jun 2023 18:47:08 +0000
From:   "Li, Xin3" <xin3.li@...el.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "andrew.cooper3@...rix.com" <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        "jiangshanlai@...il.com" <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        "Kang, Shan" <shan.kang@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v8 01/33] x86/traps: let common_interrupt() handle
 IRQ_MOVE_CLEANUP_VECTOR

> > To me it's better to keep the changes in one patch, thus the
> > differences are more obvious.
> 
> The rename to vector_schedule_cleanup() can be obviously done first.

Okay, it's a bit wired to me to rename before any actual code logic change.

> 
> > We need a second patch to do vector cleanup in lapic_offline() in case
> > the vector cleanup timer has not expired.
> 
> Right. I was lazy and just put a WARN_ON() there under the assumption that you
> will figure it out.

I see that, as your changes to lapic_offline() are completely new.

> But a second patch?
> 
> We don't switch things over into a broken state first and then fix it up afterwards.

Make sense!