linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 6/6] x86, NMI, Remove do_nmi

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: <1284344836.3269.87.camel@yhuang-dev.sh.intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 13 Sep 2010 10:27:16 +0800
From:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 6/6] x86, NMI, Remove do_nmi_callback logic

On Sat, 2010-09-11 at 00:13 +0800, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:51:05AM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> >  
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC) && !defined(CONFIG_LOCKUP_DETECTOR)
> > +extern int nmi_watchdog_tick(struct pt_regs *regs);
> > +#else
> > +static inline int nmi_watchdog_tick(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > +{
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +#endif
> > +
> >  extern atomic_t nmi_active;
> >  extern unsigned int nmi_watchdog;
> >  #define NMI_NONE	0
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > @@ -421,12 +429,8 @@ static notrace __kprobes void default_do
> >  	}
> >  	raw_spin_unlock(&nmi_reason_lock);
> >  
> > -#if defined(CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC) && !defined(CONFIG_LOCKUP_DETECTOR)
> > -	if (nmi_watchdog_tick(regs, reason))
> > -		return;
> > -	if (do_nmi_callback(regs, smp_processor_id()))
> > +	if (nmi_watchdog_tick(regs))
> >  		return;
> > -#endif
> >  
> >  	if (notify_die(DIE_NMIUNKNOWN, "nmi_unknown", regs, reason, 2, SIGINT)
> >  	    == NOTIFY_STOP)
> 
> I wonder if these two chunks are going to confuse people when they read
> the code.  The old nmi watchdog exists in the arch/x86 area but the new
> nmi watchdog code is now in kernel/watchdog.c.
> 
> If someone sees nmi_watchdog_tick() here will they assume the nmi watchdog
> code is still inside arch/x86?
> 
> I would suggest keep it wrapped with CONFIG_LOCKUP_DETECTOR to make it
> obvious.  Thoughts?

Is it planned to remove old NMI watchdog implementation in near future?

If it is not, I think it is better to document/comment the two
implementation more explicitly, maybe in nmi_watchdog_tick() comments. I
suspect nmi_watchdog_tick() wrapped with "!
defined(CONFIG_LOCKUP_DETECTOR)" will make people more confused.

Best Regards,
Huang Ying


--
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/