linux-kernel - Re: [patch 11/12] x86/resctrl: use smp_call_function_single

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: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 15:59:36 -0300
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
	Leonardo Bras <leobras@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 11/12] x86/resctrl: use smp_call_function_single_fail

On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 04:19:19PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06 2024 at 15:49, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > Convert update_task_closid_rmid from smp_call_function_single
> > to smp_call_func_single_fail, which will fail in case
> > the target CPU is tagged as block interference CPU.
> 
> You fail again to provide a rationale for this change.
> 
> What's worse is that you fail to explain why you think that creating
> inconistent state is a valid approach.

Well, the patch is broken and needs fixing.