linux-kernel - Re: handling watchdog in SMP

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]

Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:22:24 -0500
From:	Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: handling watchdog in SMP


On Oct 25, 2007, at 2:37 PM, Wim Van Sebroeck wrote:
> Hi Kumar,
>
>> I was hoping to get some ideas on how to handle the watchdog timers
>> we have on some embedded PPC (booke_wdt.c) cores when we are in a SMP
>> system.
>>
>> The problem is since the watchdog is part of the processor core
>> depending on which processor a given system call is executed at we
>> might get different behavior.  It seems like we would want to mirror
>> the actions to both cores (via smp_call_function).
>>
>> Looking at the file ops we currently support in booke_wdt.c it seems
>> like we could mirror the actions for booke_wdt_write()/booke_wdt_ping
>> () to both cores and ensure when we set something like
>> WDIOC_SETTIMEOUT we set the registers in both processors.
>>
>> I was wondering if anyone had any other ideas or if this model seems
>> to work.
>
> I see 2 ways to go:
> 1) short term: make sure that your actions are duplicated to both  
> cores
> (like you said). At least then you are protected if your complete  
> system
> crashes.
> 2) I'm working on the uniform/generic watchdog device driver. Phase  
> 1 is
> the "new" api and the /dev/watchdog handling. Phase 2 is a sysfs  
> interface.
> Phase 3 is to allow multiple devices (and there I'm still thinking  
> about
> how the /dev/watchdog interface should work).
> But the general idea is to allow at least the control of each watchdog
> device by the sysfs interface.

I haven't been following watchdog subsystem development and was  
wondering if any progress has been made on #2?

- k
--
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/