linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/irq: Fix comment on IRQ vector layout

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: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:02:22 -0700
From: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar
 <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen
 <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/irq: Fix comment on IRQ vector layout


On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 20:13:20 +0000, Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
wrote:

> commit f5a3562ec9dd ("x86/irq: Reserve a per CPU IDT vector for posted
> MSIs") changed the first system vector from LOCAL_TIMER_VECTOR to
> POSTED_MSI_NOTIFICATION_VECTOR. Reflect this change in the vector layout
> comment as well.
> 
> However, instead of pointing to the specific vector, use the
> FIRST_SYSTEM_VECTOR indirection which essentially refers to the same.
> This would avoid unnecessary modifications to the same comment whenever
> additional system vectors get added.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/irq_vectors.h | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/irq_vectors.h
> b/arch/x86/include/asm/irq_vectors.h index 13aea8fc3d45..970a89e7c6b7
> 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/irq_vectors.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/irq_vectors.h
> @@ -18,8 +18,8 @@
>   *  Vectors   0 ...  31 : system traps and exceptions - hardcoded events
>   *  Vectors  32 ... 127 : device interrupts
>   *  Vector  128         : legacy int80 syscall interface
> - *  Vectors 129 ... LOCAL_TIMER_VECTOR-1
> - *  Vectors LOCAL_TIMER_VECTOR ... 255 : special interrupts
> + *  Vectors 129 ... FIRST_SYSTEM_VECTOR-1
Should this range be explicitly labeled as "device interrupts"?

Thanks,

Jacob