On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > ahh ... I would not be surprised if this caused actual problems on x64
> > > in the upstream kernel too: using save_flags() over u32 will corrupt a
> > > word on the stack ...
> > >
> >
> > Actually, it's still safe upstream. The locks are taken via a function
> > defined as:
> >
> > unsigned long acpi_os_acquire_lock(acpi_handle handle)
> > {
> > unsigned long flags;
> > spin_lock_irqsave((spinlock_t *) handle, flags);
> > return flags;
> > }
> >
> > So a u32 flags with
> >
> > flags = acpi_os_acquire_lock(lock);
> >
> > would be safe, unless a 64 bit machine stored the value of IR in the
> > upper word, which I don't know of any archs that do that.
>
> ok. But this still looks very volatile. Nowhere do we guarantee (or can
> we guarantee) that silently zeroing out the upper 32 bits of flags is
> safe!
>
Andi,
So, should I send my patch upstream?
There's three files that need to be changed:
drivers/acpi/events/evgpe.c
drivers/acpi/events/evgpeblk.c
drivers/acpi/events/evxface.c
They store flags as u32, but it does it through acpi_os_acquire_lock, so
you won't get any warnings.
-- Steve
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
