linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] printk: add halt_delay parameter for printk delay in halt phase

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:	Mon, 8 Jun 2009 19:33:41 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] printk: add halt_delay parameter for printk delay in
  halt phase

On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 09:01:19 +0800 Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Andrew Morton<akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 19:15:01 +0200
> > Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> >
> >> > questions: is it possible for interrupts to be disabled at this
> >> > time? If so, can we get an NMI watchdog hit?
> >>
> >> no, we generally turn off the nmi watchdog during shutdown, disable
> >> the lapic and io-apic, etc.
> >
> > Is x86 the only architecture which implements an NMI watchdog?
> >
> >> > Is the softlockup detector still running and if so, can it
> >> > trigger?
> >>
> >> in (non-emergency) reboot, last i checked, we stopped all other CPUs
> >> first, and then killed the current one. There's no chance for the
> >> watchdog thread to run.
> >
> > OK, but... __See below.
> >
> >> Anyway ... you seem to be uncomfortable about this patch - should i
> >> delay it for now to let it all play out? We are close to the merge
> >> window.
> >
> > I'm OK - I'm just bouncing ideas and questions off you guys, to make sure
> > that we've thought this through all the way.
> >
> > Here's another: why is it a boot option rather than a runtime-tunable?
> > A /proc tweakable is generally preferable because it avoids the
> > oh-crap-i-forgot-to-edit-grub.conf thing. __And we could perhaps then
> > remove all those system_state tests: userspace sets printk_delay
> > immediately prior to running halt/reboot/etc?
> 
> Andrew, thanks your comments.
> I original intention is to use not boot options but sysfs interface.
> Do you perfer proc?

sysfs is OK, if there's a logical place for it.  /sys/kernel/, I suppose.

> without system_state testing we will have to consider the NMI watchdog
> and softlockup issue.

Yup.


--
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/