linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Freezer, CPU hotplug, x86 Microcode: Fix task freezing failures

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:	Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:53:43 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
To:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	"rjw@...k.pl" <rjw@...k.pl>, "bp@...64.org" <bp@...64.org>,
	"pavel@....cz" <pavel@....cz>,
	"len.brown@...el.com" <len.brown@...el.com>,
	"tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>, "mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"suresh.b.siddha@...el.com" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	"lucas.demarchi@...fusion.mobi" <lucas.demarchi@...fusion.mobi>,
	"rusty@...tcorp.com.au" <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	"rdunlap@...otime.net" <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	"vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"ashok.raj@...el.com" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
	"tigran@...azian.fsnet.co.uk" <tigran@...azian.fsnet.co.uk>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Freezer, CPU hotplug, x86 Microcode: Fix task
 freezing failures

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:32:40AM -0400, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > The seems like entirely the wrong way to go about solving this problem.
> > 
> > The kernel shouldn't be responsible for making hotplug stress tests 
> > exclusive with system sleep.  Whoever is running those tests should be 
> > smart enough to realize what's wrong if system sleep interferes with a 
> > test.

Yes, agreed. And more: I'm still trying to understand why a test case
like that is relevant and needs to be fixed at all. Let me re-formulate
the question: what real world scenario(s) does the case of hibernating
_while_ off- and onlining cores cover? Or are you simply doing kernel
resiliency testing and thought that offlining cores while hibernating
might make sense?

IOW, I still fail to see a strong reason for this needing fixing.

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach
GM: Alberto Bozzo
Reg: Dornach, Landkreis Muenchen
HRB Nr. 43632 WEEE Registernr: 129 19551
--
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/