linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] NMI Re-introduce un[set]_nmi

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, 04 Sep 2008 10:29:20 -0400
From:	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arozansk@...hat.com,
	dzickus@...hat.com, Thomas.Mingarelli@...com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
	mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] NMI Re-introduce un[set]_nmi_callback

>
> Why is the DIE_NMIWATCHDOG notifier not sufficient for this driver?
>
>   

Peter -- good question.  The HP systems with this HW will use the hpwdt 
driver in place of the default nmi watchdog.  When the HW detects a 
problem, the HW will generate a single NMI that the driver will handle.  
The driver doesn't want the NMI to be rejected due to a reason code.  
I'm sure that Thomas Mingarelli, who is cc'd, can provide further details.

 From our quick conversation as well, you raised an interesting point 
about oprofile, kgdb, and other subsystems that use the NMI notifier 
chains -- they may be impacted by the NMI callback.

Don (dzickus) or Aris, do you have any thoughts on how to get around the 
second issue?  We could check to see if anything is registered on the 
notifier chain and the fail to register the callback.

P.
--
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/