linux-kernel - Re: [RT] [RFC] simple SMI detector

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: <1232919680.1326.11.camel@jcmlaptop>
Date:	Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:41:20 -0500
From:	Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sdietrich@...ell.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Lee Revell <rlrevell@...-job.com>,
	linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	williams <williams@...hat.com>,
	"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lgoncalv@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RT] [RFC] simple SMI detector

On Sat, 2009-01-24 at 23:02 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:

> I'm not sure exactly how one would do this certification, but I agree
> that some kind of "real-time ready" logo/certification program would
> make a huge amount of sense, with some standardized metrics of maximum
> time spent in an SMI routine, and under what circumstances (in some
> cases it occurs every 30-60 minutes; on other cases, only when the CPU
> is about to melt itself into slag, or when there are ECC errors, etc.)
> There is a huge difference between a system which stops the OS on all
> CPU's dead in its tracks for milliseconds once every 45 minutes,
> versus one which only triggers an SMI in extreme situations when the
> hardware is about to destroy itself.

I actually already talked to a certain industry group about a different
program but will mention this idea also - some kind of industry notion
of "real time platform" probably wouldn't be a bad idea. I'm not sure
what the vendors would say/think, but it's probably worth having the
discussion anyway. I think we're all right now having to do a lot of
legwork in testing/certifying that systems have acceptable latencies.

Jon.


--
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/