linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clockevents/drivers/i8253: Do not zero timer counter in shutdown

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: <1508F48A-DCCF-4AF6-8CA3-109B289E98B2@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2024 22:31:01 +0100
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, lirongqing@...du.com, seanjc@...gle.com,
 kys@...rosoft.com, haiyangz@...rosoft.com, wei.liu@...nel.org,
 decui@...rosoft.com, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
 dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clockevents/drivers/i8253: Do not zero timer counter in shutdown

On 1 August 2024 22:22:56 BST, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 01 2024 at 21:49, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> On Thu, 2024-08-01 at 22:00 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> > I justify my cowardice on the basis that it doesn't *matter* if a
>>> > hardware implementation is still toggling the IRQ pin; in that case
>>> > it's only a few irrelevant transistors which are busy, and it doesn't
>>> > translate to steal time.
>>> 
>>> On real hardware it translates to power...
>>
>> Perhaps, although I'd guess it's a negligible amount. Still, happy to
>> be brave and make it unconditional. Want a new version of the patch?
>
>Let'ss fix the shutdown sequence first (See Michaels latest mail) and
>then do the clockevents_i8253_init() change on top.

Makes sense.