linux-kernel - Re: [Openipmi-developer] [PATCH 4/5] IPMI: Add console oops catcher

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, 15 Apr 2009 09:07:06 -0600
From:	dann frazier <dannf@...com>
To:	Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>
Cc:	Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@...jp.nec.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Openipmi-developer] [PATCH 4/5] IPMI: Add console oops catcher

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 09:34:38AM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:
> Hiroshi Shimamoto wrote:
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:03:37 -0800
> >> Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@...jp.nec.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> ...
> >>>> This reader is unable to determine what the mystery preempt_disable()
> >>>> is here for.  It needs a comment, please.
> >>> I cannot recall why it's here. So a comment is really needed.
> >>> This preempt_disable() may not be needed.
> >>>
> >>>> What happens if two CPUs oops at the same time (which is fairly 
> >>>> common)?
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>> OK. I'll look at this.
> >>>
> >>>> It would be prudent to have a timeout in this loop.  The machine has
> >>>> crashed and subsystems and hardware and memory are in an unknown and
> >>>> possibly bad state.
> >>> Right.
> >>>
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>>> This looks like we're abusing the "unblank" method.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you think that the console subsystem is missing some capability
> >>>> which this driver needs then please do prefer to fix the console
> >>>> subsystem, rather than awkwardly making things fit.
> >>> OK. Will take a look about this point.
> >>>
> >>
> >> None of this happened.
> >>
> >> It makes me reluctant to merge that patches as they stand, because then
> >> it all gets forgotten about, whereas holding the patches back will
> >> remind us that updates are needed.
> >
> > Sorry for late reply.
> > I couldn't have time for this patch.
> > I'll look at this again and will resend updates.
> Andrew, can we drop this for now and at get the other patches in?  At 
> least the first one ("Fix platform return check"), since it's an obvious 
> bug fix.

As it should allow us stop shipping a set of forked modules,
ipmi-add-oem-message-handling.patch would be nice too :)

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -corey
> 
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Hiroshi
> >
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by:
> High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment.
> Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com
> _______________________________________________
> Openipmi-developer mailing list
> Openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openipmi-developer
> 

-- 
dann frazier

--
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/