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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <43913cf2-3f3d-48ae-baf9-3ed2a80af539@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 10:23:35 +0200
From: Wladislav Wiebe <wladislav.wiebe@...ia.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 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 01/07/2025 09:37, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> 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

all right, I've updated to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250714084209.918-1-wladislav.wiebe@nokia.com/ Thank you for all comments! - W.W.