linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] add new notifier function ,take2

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <47203C21.2010505@ah.jp.nec.com>
Date:	Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:48:01 +0900
From:	Takenori Nagano <t-nagano@...jp.nec.com>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, vgoyal@...ibm.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	k-miyoshi@...jp.nec.com, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
	Bernhard Walle <bwalle@...e.de>, Keith Owens <kaos@....com.au>,
	kdb@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] add new notifier function ,take2

Nick Piggin wrote:
>>> Is it possible to use a single bit of common code and a single
>>> notifier for these things? Or is it too difficult?
>> >
>> > I'm sorry, I can't understand your image well. I'd like to know details of
>> > your image.
> 
> Rather than have each of "RAS tools" have their own notifier, and have
> the user specify the priority of the notifiers, introduce some layer
> which _knows_ that, for example, only one of these subsystems will be
> called (it could arbitrate, perhaps distinguish between destructive and
> non-destructive ones). It would need only a single notifier, but would
> then have a specific way of calling into the ras modules.
> 
> Does this make sense? I guess it is a lot more work to do, so maybe your
> solution is the best one for now.

Hi Nick,

Thank you for your explanation. I understand. :-)

This is crash_stop (the common infrastructure for debug tools) by Keith Owens.
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-arch@vger.kernel.org/msg01929.html

Is it same as your idea? I think it is very nice solution for debug tools
conflict problem.

By the way, on old notify_chain, if admin wants to change the list order, admin
have to recompile the kernel. My patches add new *generic* notify_chain which
admin can modify the list order. My patches are not only for RAS tools problem.

I'm happy if both patches are merged into mainline. :-)

Thanks,
  Takenori
-
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/