Re: Kernel oops with 2.6.26, padlock and ipsec: probably problem with fpu state changes

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>, Herbert Xu <herbert@...>, netdev@vger.kernel.org <netdev@...>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org <linux-kernel@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk <viro@...>, vegard.nossum@gmail.com <vegard.nossum@...>
Date: Saturday, August 9, 2008 - 6:59 pm

On Saturday 09 August 2008, Suresh Siddha wrote:
process
interrupt

The first solution - if it works and padlock is the only which has problem 
with it - seems to be a good fix for 2.6.26. If it works I can't say as I'm 
not familiar enough with these things. But I'll happily test it :-).

The second would be a little bit intrusive, wouldn't it? Most machines don't 
have padlock, and therfore don't need this change but nevertheless may be 
affected (i.e. they use MMX for memcpy or MMX/SSE with raid6) and now get a 
different behaviour. Don't know how expensive such a local_irq_enable/disable 
would be.


Regards,
-- 
Wolfgang Walter
Studentenwerk München
Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: Kernel oops with 2.6.26, padlock and ipsec: probably pro..., Wolfgang Walter, (Sat Aug 9, 6:59 pm)