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: <20101007161748.GD6270@basil.fritz.box>
Date:	Thu, 7 Oct 2010 18:17:48 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, 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 11:47:58AM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> > > 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.

The whole APIC interface is x86 specific.

"just a test case" is the wrong perspective.
Testing is important, if a feature is not tested it likely won't
work. That's especially important for anything error handling related.

-Andi
-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/