linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kexec: force x86_64 arches to boot kdump kernels on boot cpu

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]

Message-ID: <20071217113826.GA21307@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
Date:	Mon, 17 Dec 2007 06:38:26 -0500
From:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Ben Woodard <woodard@...hat.com>, Neil Horman <nhorman@...hat.com>,
	kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, hbabu@...ibm.com, mingo@...hat.com,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, hpa@...or.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kexec: force x86_64 arches to boot kdump kernels on
	boot cpu

On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 10:32:22AM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 04:16:29PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:39:22AM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> > > 
> > > Ok, new patch attached, taking into account Andi's request for a cleaner method
> > 
> > Sorry for not noticing that earlier, but was there a specific reason this needs
> > to be an early quirk at all? kexec can only happen after the standard quirks ran.
> > I think it should be fine as a standard "late" quirk.
> > 
> > -Andi
> > 
> Early quirk seemed like the right thing to do to me.  Starting from boot up,
> this (mis)configuration by the bios can mean that come cpus just don't get
> interrupts.  I could imagine situations like serial console not working if the
> serial port interrupt was routed to a cpu that used extended APIC id.  I've
> never actually observed it happening, but making sure that all cpus were
> eligible to get interrupts early in the boot process made sense to me.
> 
> Neil
> 

Sorry to push on this, but do we have a consensus on this fix?  Andi, do you
still feel this needs to be a late quirk given my previous arguments?

Regards
Neil

--
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/