linux-kernel - RE: [tip:core/locking] watchdog, hpwdt: Remove priority option for NMI callback

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, 26 Apr 2012 13:47:03 +0000
From:	"Mingarelli, Thomas" <Thomas.Mingarelli@...com>
To:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>, Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>
CC:	"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org" 
	<linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [tip:core/locking] watchdog, hpwdt: Remove priority option for
 NMI callback

Wim:


Don is correct. We did have a separate discussion about this after I denied the original patch. It is all good now.

And thanks for cutting in the port 0x72 patch.

Thanks,
Tom 

-----Original Message-----
From: Don Zickus [mailto:dzickus@...hat.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 7:27 AM
To: Wim Van Sebroeck
Cc: mingo@...nel.org; hpa@...or.com; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; torvalds@...ux-foundation.org; peterz@...radead.org; Mingarelli, Thomas; akpm@...ux-foundation.org; tglx@...utronix.de; linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:core/locking] watchdog, hpwdt: Remove priority option for NMI callback

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 09:13:39AM +0200, Wim Van Sebroeck wrote:
> > 
> > Therefore hpwdt's priority mechanism doesn't make sense any
> > more.  They will be always first on the NMI_UNKNOWN queue, if
> > they register.
> > 
> > Removing this parameter cleans up the code and simplifies things
> > for the next patch which changes how nmis are registered.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
> > Cc: Thomas Mingarelli <thomas.mingarelli@...com>
> > Cc: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> > Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1333051877-15755-2-git-send-email-dzickus@redhat.com
> > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> 
> This is the feedback I have from Tom which he discussed with Don:
> > I don't like this patch because the Virtual NMI button doesn't come through the pretimeout routine. It is taken by the
> system as an IOCK NMI error and no log messages in our IML.
> > Our BIOS is not able to source the NMI.
> 
> And since then it became quiet. Imho: this needs more discussion...

Tom and I discussed this offline.  The result was patch 2 of this series.
The problem he had, had nothing to do with this patch (which was just a
cleanup really).  Tom tested the second patch and was happy with the
results.

If there is any other issues, I am assuming Tom would have let me know a
while ago.  But I believe all his issues are addressed.  Tom?

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/