linux-kernel - Re: [patch 3/4] Locally disable the softlockup watchdog rather than touching it

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, 28 Mar 2007 16:09:04 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To:	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
Cc:	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	virtualization@...ts.osdl.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, John Hawkes <hawkes@....com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/4] Locally disable the softlockup watchdog rather than touching it

On Wednesday 28 March 2007 16:00, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> 
> >> touch_nmi_watchdog is attempting to tickle _all_ CPUs softlockup watchdogs.
> >>     
> >
> > It is supposed to only touch the current CPU, just like it only touches
> > the NMI watchdog on the current CPU.
> >
> >   
> 
> Andi,
> 
> (sorry for the cut-and-paste). 
> 
> touch_nmi_watchdogs sets EACH CPUs alert_counter to 0.

You're right. Sorry for the confusion.  

But just touching the current CPU would make much more sense. After all
the caller doesn't know anything about the state of other CPUs. Perhaps it would be best
to just change that and keep the softlockup semantics.

-Andi
-
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/