linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND RFC PATCH v1 2/2] serial/8250: Avoid getting lock in RT atomic context

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: <Zalk0Md6F12xNz91@LeoBras>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 14:50:08 -0300
From: Leonardo Bras <leobras@...hat.com>
To: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Cc: Leonardo Bras <leobras@...hat.com>,
	Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-serial <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND RFC PATCH v1 2/2] serial/8250: Avoid getting lock in RT atomic context

On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 11:33:04AM +0106, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2024-01-18, Leonardo Bras <leobras@...hat.com> wrote:
> > Sure, please let me know of where can I find the latest PREEMPT_RT
> > patch series so I can re-test my bug. By what you comment, it's higly
> > probable that patch 2/2 will not be necessary.
> 
> Some links for you:
> 
> 
> The Real-Time Wiki at the Linux Foundation:
> 
> https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/realtime/
> 
> 
> The latest development RT patch series for 6.7:
> 
> https://cdn.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/projects/rt/6.7/patches-6.7-rt6.tar.xz
> 
> 
> RT git (branch linux-6.7.y-rt-rebase is probably what you want):
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rt/linux-rt-devel.git
> 

Hello John, thank you for sharing the links!

> 
> > On the other hand, unless some extra work was done in preventing the
> > scenario in patch 1/2, I think that can still be discussed.
> 
> I agree. Thanks for looking into this.
> 
> John
> 

Thank you!
Leo