linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] genirq/manage: Reduce priority of forced secondary IRQ handler

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20251027081806.qoogsX3l@linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 09:18:06 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
Cc: Crystal Wood <crwood@...hat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Clark Williams <clrkwllms@...nel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Attila Fazekas <afazekas@...hat.com>,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@...ts.linux.dev,
	Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
	Mahesh J Salgaonkar <mahesh@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Oliver OHalloran <oohall@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] genirq/manage: Reduce priority of forced secondary IRQ
 handler

On 2025-10-27 07:40:46 [+0100], Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > I suspect it was a non-issue because of IRQCHIP_ONESHOT_SAFE disabling
> > the forced oneshot (the other irq was pciehp).  Given that these are
> > pcie-specific, do they ever get used without MSI (which sets
> > IRQCHIP_ONESHOT_SAFE)[1]?
> 
> It seems fragile to depend on IRQCHIP_ONESHOT_SAFE.  What about irqchips
> which don't set that?  What about PCIe ports which use legacy INTx
> instead of MSI?

exactly.

> Long story short, I'll respin the patch to reduce the forced secondary
> thread's priority, taking into account Thomas' feedback.
> (Apologies for not having done this earlier.)

no worries, thanks for the spin up.

> Thanks,
> 
> Lukas

Sebastian