linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/8] x86: I/O APIC: Timer through 8259A second-chance

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: <Pine.LNX.4.55.0806051541210.2875@cliff.in.clinika.pl>
Date:	Thu, 5 Jun 2008 15:55:41 +0100 (BST)
From:	"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] x86: I/O APIC: Timer through 8259A second-chance

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> -tip testing found an IO-APIC related hang, and i bisected it down to 
> the problem below. What do you think about my solution? Another option 
> would be to add the lapic as a clockevent device in the failure path. 
> (since we know the NMI watchdog wont work)

 It seems wrong to me to set timer_through_8259 in apic_{32,64}.c -- can I
get .config for this setup as well as the bootstrap log?  Why is the 8259A
needed here to supply the timer interrupt?  It shouldn't be needed except
as arranged in check_timer() -- elsewhere the corresponding I/O APIC input
is not set up correctly.

 Note I have chosen the default value of timer_through_8259 deliberately
to trigger dodgy cases like this ;) so that they can be investigated.

  Maciej
--
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/