linux-kernel - Re: [patch] x86_64: do not enable the NMI watchdog by default

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]

Date:	Thu, 7 Dec 2006 12:38:36 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To:	Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...e.de,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] x86_64: do not enable the NMI watchdog by default

On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 12:30:11 +0000
Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 13:11:35 +0100
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> 
> > or via the nmi_watchdog=1 or nmi_watchdog=2 boot options.
> > 
> > build and boot tested on an Athlon64 box.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> 
> Acked-by: Alan Cox <alan@...hat.com>

metoo.  I'm really struggling to recall an occasion on which the NMI
watchdog helped diagnose or fix a bug.  The usual scenario nowadays is that
I ask a reporter to enable NMI watchdog and for various reasons (mostly
mysterious) no useful information comes of it.

If it's causing machines to go down then the current tradeoff doesn't seem
right.

But _is_ it causing machines to go down, after the ACPI fix?

(the patch doesn't vaguely apply btw).
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/