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]

Date:	Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:51:12 -0500
From:	Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>
To:	Mike Kravetz <kravetz@...ibm.com>
Cc:	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 Sun, 2009-01-25 at 14:52 -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:

> Any reason why you could not do SMI detection in user level code running
> at the highest RT priority?

Yeah. I had some suggestions about that already...the problem with that
is that you can't know whether measured latencies are due to SMIs /or/
other kernel latencies - maybe there's a bug or other problem? I really
want to be able to say to vendors "nope, it's definitely your problem".

So I think what'll end up happening is a user process for ease of
deployment but something like smi_detector for advanced diagnostics. And
then I just hope others will write tools like the one IBM already has
that will turn off extraneous SMI generation :)

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/