linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v2 7/7] x86, NMI, Remove do_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:	Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:21:35 -0400
From:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc:	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
	huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 7/7] x86, NMI, Remove do_nmi_callback logic

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 09:41:43AM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 00:58 +0800, Robert Richter wrote:
> > On 27.09.10 11:16:07, Don Zickus wrote:
> > > Actually die_nmi is a wrapper around panic with two important pieces.
> > > One, it dumps some registers and two it does another notifier call to
> > > DIE_NMIWATCHDOG (which correlates to another discussion in this patch
> > > series).
> > > 
> > > So if we do any consolidation between panic and die_nmi, it should be
> > > convert to die_nmi.  But then I wonder if that breaks the original
> > > semantics of 'panic_on_unrecovered_nmi'.  I don't think so though.
> > 
> > I agree, panic_on_unrecovered_nmi and unknown_nmi_panic almost do the
> > same thing, though die_nmi() is specifically for nmi handlers. In the
> > end we can consolidate both. We should then modify kernel.txt and
> > route unknown_nmi_panic to panic_on_unrecovered_nmi or vice versa.
> 
> unknown_nmi_panic will cause panic for unknown NMI (can not identify the
> NMI sources).
> 
> panic_on_unrecovered_nmi should panic for unrecovered hardware errors,
> for known and unknown NMI. For example, panic_on_unrecovered_nmi will
> cause panic in mem_parity_error too, which can be considered known NMI.
> 
> Is it reasonable?

Routing unknown_nmi_panic to panic_on_unrecovered_nmi makes sense to me,
just more difficult to type out. :-)

Cheers,
Don
--
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/