| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:30:24 -0400 From: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lwoodman@...hat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] extend sysrq-p functionality to cover all CPUs On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:47:59 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:14:58 -0400 Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com> wrote: > > > SysRP-P is not all that useful on SMP systems, since the sysrq > > irq rarely ends up on the CPU that we actually want to investigate. > Doesn't everyone have a copy of this somewhere? ;) Yes, but the old version of the patch calls on_each_cpu from sysrq context, which is illegal since it could cause a deadlock. > However it does have the downside that info can scroll away on large cpu > counts. Maybe it should be a new sysrq command? It used to be sysrq-w in the patches that everybody has, but that letter got taken for sysrq_showstate_blocked_op. Only sysrq h, j, l, y and z are still free. H is needed for help, leaving just j, l, y and z. I can see your point about overflowing the screen, however just sysrq-p seems like a waste to have because it will probably not print anything useful on a large CPU system... If you still want it to be a separate letter, just let me know which one of the last four I should take. -- All rights reversed. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists