linux-kernel - Re: Recoverable MCA interrupts from NMI handlers? IPMI and RCU?

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:	Fri, 6 Jun 2008 17:44:11 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, dvhltc@...ibm.com,
	niv@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: Recoverable MCA interrupts from NMI handlers?  IPMI and RCU?

On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 05:03:37PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Corey Minyard wrote:
> >If you mean the IPMI driver, it does not tie into any SMI.  It 
> >theoretically could since there's a bit for that in the watchdog timer, 
> >but there's been no demand and I haven't looked at it.  I guess it would 
> >be better than an NMI.
> >
> >If it did tie in, it would most likely just panic to get useful 
> >information out before the watchdog reset the system.
> 
> The main reason I could see wanting to use SMI would be as a debugging 
> tool, since SMI makes the entire state of the system available at a low 
> level; however, trying to interact with the state of the kernel at this 
> priority level seems beyond the pale in terms of complexity.

Works for me!  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/