linux-kernel - Re: [RFC patch] return early if all dmar HW unit ignored

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: <1249369794.9324.18.camel@macbook.infradead.org>
Date:	Tue, 04 Aug 2009 08:09:54 +0100
From:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To:	Luming Yu <luming.yu@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch] return early if all dmar HW unit ignored

On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 16:29 +0800, Luming Yu wrote:
> Hello list,
> 
> When debugging an IOMMU problem, I noticed it should be much more safe
> to return early than late if all remapping HW unit are ignored.
> To figure out what device causes the iommu problem on my linux box:
> hp-compaq dc7800, I tried to mark all dmar HW
> unit ignored,but still got a lot of unxepcted dmar_fault. So I think
> the proposed patch make sense. The next step is to
> add a boot option to make dmar HW units selectable enable/disable individually.

Why were you seeing faults if all dmar units were ignored? Surely that
shouldn't happen?

This patch doesn't make a lot of sense on its own -- can you show what
you were intending to do as the 'next step'?

-- 
David Woodhouse                            Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse@...el.com                              Intel Corporation

--
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/