linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v2 6/7] x86, NMI, Add support to notify hardware error with unknown 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: <20100930083806.GU13563@erda.amd.com>
Date:	Thu, 30 Sep 2010 10:38:06 +0200
From:	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
To:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
CC:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
	huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>,
	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: [PATCH -v2 6/7] x86, NMI, Add support to notify hardware error
 with unknown NMI

On 30.09.10 00:57:10, Huang Ying wrote:
> Yes. Both MCE and perf are CPU features. I think they can be thought as
> optional architectural features. I think it is good to put similar
> features into arch/x86/kernel/cpu instead of traps.c. But if necessary,
> we can put direct call in traps.c instead of notifier block.

As you see it seems not being obviously, what goes here and what goes
there. The approach is wrong. If we want to handle some hardware
feature, we should simply register a handler for this. Implemetations
for unhandled or unrecovered interrupts should be in traps.c. It's
that simple.

-Robert

-- 
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Operating System Research Center

--
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/