On 07/26/2018 09:37 AM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
Should the PSP initialization fail, the PSP data structure will be
freed and the value contained in the sp_device struct set to NULL.
At module unload, psp_dev_destroy() does not check if the pointer
value is NULL and will end up dereferencing a NULL
Should the PSP initialization fail, the PSP data structure will be
freed and the value contained in the sp_device struct set to NULL.
At module unload, psp_dev_destroy() does not check if the pointer
value is NULL and will end up dereferencing a NULL pointer.
Add a pointer check of the psp_data
On 2018-07-26 09:25:40 [+0200], Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Thanks a lot.
>
> So 20 us ~= 20,000 cycles on my 1 GHz Cortex-A53, and if I am
> understanding you correctly, you wouldn't mind the quantum of work to
> be in the order 16,000 cycles or even substantially more?
I have currently that one
On 25 July 2018 at 18:50, bige...@linutronix.de wrote:
> On 2018-07-25 11:54:53 [+0200], Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> Indeed. OTOH, if the -rt people (Sebastian?) turn up and say that a
>> 1000 cycle limit to the quantum of work performed with preemption
>> disabled is unreasonably low, we can
