netdev - Re: [Patch v4 1/3] lib: Restrict cpumask_local

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: <87sg37eiqa.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Fri, 30 Apr 2021 20:21:33 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Nitesh Lal <nilal@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        "frederic\@kernel.org" <frederic@...nel.org>,
        "juri.lelli\@redhat.com" <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>, abelits@...vell.com,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-api\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        "bhelgaas\@google.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "linux-pci\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "rostedt\@goodmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        "mingo\@kernel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "peterz\@infradead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "davem\@davemloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "akpm\@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "sfr\@canb.auug.org.au" <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        "stephen\@networkplumber.org" <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        "rppt\@linux.vnet.ibm.com" <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "jinyuqi\@huawei.com" <jinyuqi@...wei.com>,
        "zhangshaokun\@hisilicon.com" <zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, chris.friesen@...driver.com
Subject: Re: [Patch v4 1/3] lib: Restrict cpumask_local_spread to houskeeping CPUs

Nitesh,

On Fri, Apr 30 2021 at 12:14, Nitesh Lal wrote:
> Based on this analysis and the fact that with your re-work the interrupts
> seems to be naturally spread across the CPUs, will it be safe to revert
> Jesse's patch
>
> e2e64a932 genirq: Set initial affinity in irq_set_affinity_hint()
>
> as it overwrites the previously set IRQ affinity mask for some of the
> devices?

That's a good question. My gut feeling says yes.

> IMHO if we think that this patch is still solving some issue other than
> what Jesse has mentioned then perhaps we should reproduce that and fix it
> directly from the request_irq code path.

Makes sense.

Thanks,

        tglx