linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] irq: add support for warning on long-running IRQ handlers

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87frfgmkf2.ffs@tglx>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2025 09:37:05 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Wladislav Wiebe <wladislav.wiebe@...ia.com>, anna-maria@...utronix.de,
 frederic@...nel.org, mingo@...nel.org
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, bigeasy@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irq: add support for warning on long-running IRQ handlers

On Tue, Jul 01 2025 at 08:10, Wladislav Wiebe wrote:
> On 30/06/2025 17:42, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Define sufficient. That really depends on your use case. For a real-time
>> system a hard interrupt handler running longer than a few microseconds
>> can be problematic.
>>
>> So instead of adding some single purpose mechanism, can we please add
>> something flexible which can be used for a wide range of scenarios.
>
> the initial goal was to cover regular non-RT cores, as on isolated/tickless cores
> we should not have device interrupts.

Who is 'we'? If you refer to your use case that might be correct, but
you cannot make assumptions about the rest of the world. Real-Time
systems are as divers in setup and configuration as anything else.

Thanks,

        tglx