linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] arch generic way to trigger unknown NMIs

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: <20101007154758.GA22385@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 7 Oct 2010 11:47:58 -0400
From:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, fweisbec@...il.com, robert.richter@....com,
	gorcunov@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] arch generic way to trigger unknown NMIs

On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 05:11:29PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 10:01:12AM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 09:26:41AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > 
> > > Having a regression test for this is good, but it would 
> > > be also good if it wasn't a private one but in some public
> > > git repository.
> > 
> > Yeah, I know.  It isn't meant to be private, mostly glue logic to load
> > this module using RedHat's internal test harness.
> > 
> > Is there a more public place to add a test like this?  I guess that would
> > be LTP.  Though last time I looked at LTP, all the tests are written in
> > 'C' whereas I just cobbled together some shell scripts to configure kdump,
> > load the module, panic, process the resulting vmcore to verify it panic'd
> > for the right reason
> 
> One possible place would be mce-test, but LTP would work too I guess.

I forgot about mce-test.  I can look at that too.

<snip>

> > 
> > No I prefer a single one too, but there didn't seem to be a
> > send_IPI_self() command, so I took the short route and sent it to
> > everyone. :-(
> 
> You're not sending it to everyone, everyone but you.
> 
> Anyways for standard APIC send_IPI_cpu should be easy enough
> to add. Standard NMI is usually to CPU #0 only.

Would that still be x86 specific though?  I could probably code that up,
though I wonder if it would be accepted just for a test case.

Cheers,
Don
--
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/