linux-kernel - Re: ppc_md.SMI replacement for 2.6

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: <7AD77164-8476-4138-A390-B604CD18A221@kayser.net>
Date:	Thu, 8 Oct 2009 08:37:58 -0500
From:	Donald Kayser <linux@...ser.net>
To:	linuxkernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ppc_md.SMI replacement for 2.6

I have found the differences between the 2.4 and 2.6 kernel. It is in  
linux-2.4/arch/ppc/kernel/traps.c and linux-2.6/arch/powerpc/kernel/ 
traps.c in the function SMIException(). There is no longer the code  
segment

if (ppc_md.SMI)
{
   ppc_md.SMI(regs);
   return;
}

There is now only a

die("System Management Interrupt", regs, SIGABRT);

I am guessing that the SMI callback is no longer needed by the linux  
community at large, so I modified the code for my specific hardware  
(HPPB) and acknowledged the exception as in the 2.4 kernel, and  
returned from the exception without the call to die(). My problem now  
is that it doesn't seem to work. Does anyone have a reason why the SMI  
exception might hang the system when it has been provided a handler?

Thanks in advance.

Donald Kayser

On Oct 7, 2009, at 10:06 AM, Donald Kayser wrote:

> I have ported the 2.6 kernel to an embedded PPC target (old stuff).  
> I have managed to figure everything out, but can't find any  
> replacement for a SMI handler. The original 2.4 version for this  
> target has a bit of code ppc_md.SMI == SmiFuncHandler; I have not  
> been able to find in the current source anything like this. I am not  
> certain that I need to provide a handler at all, but the original  
> developers saw some reason for including it. The particular handler  
> does not do anything more than cancel a watchdog listener for this  
> specific target. I have been living without the handler, but would  
> like to find any kind of replacement if it is supported.
>
> Thanks,
> Donald Kayser
> linux@...ser.net

--
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/