linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86, mce: Have MCE persistent event off by default for now

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:	Wed, 4 May 2011 22:34:06 -0300
From:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>
To:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>,
	EDAC devel <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Petkov, Borislav" <Borislav.Petkov@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86, mce: Have MCE persistent event off by default
 for now

Em Wed, May 04, 2011 at 02:40:37PM -0700, Luck, Tony escreveu:
> > Yes, i definitely think a gateway to printk would be useful, so that the system 
> > can log MCE events the syslog way as well. This probably makes sense for 
> > persistent events in general, not just MCE events.
> 
> s/as well/instead/ ??? If the persistent event mechanism is correctly feeding
> data to a mart daemon, I don't think we need any printk() chatter. It is only
> if this is not working that we'd want to see some console logging.
> 
> I agree that this isn't just a property of the MCE persistent event - other
> persistent events would very likely want a way to shout for help if the events
> are piling up with no listener.
> 
> > printk itself could become a persistent event. (Transparently and without 
> > breaking compatible syslogd/klogd functionality.)
> 
> Someone from Google was very skeptical of printk() remaining stable from
> release to release ... a big issue when you have some heavy duty infrastructure
> trying to parse and consume these messages.  We should really consider such
> stuff a user visible ABI, and thus not subject to random breakage - which
> is a radical departure from our current attitude to printk().

what is the problem with adding free form additional info to whatever
turns into heavenly for ever unchanged dogma? :-)

- Arnaldo
--
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/