linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] watchdog: touch_nmi_watchdog should only touch local cpu not every one

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20101108133851.GK4823@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 8 Nov 2010 08:38:51 -0500
From:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] watchdog:  touch_nmi_watchdog should only touch local
 cpu not every one

On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 11:09:11PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Using __raw here because some code paths have
> > +	 * preemption enabled.  If preemption is enabled
> > +	 * then interrupts should be enabled too, in which
> > +	 * case we shouldn't have to worry about the watchdog
> > +	 * going off.
> > +	 */
> > +	__raw_get_cpu_var(watchdog_nmi_touch) = true;
> > +
> > +	touch_softlockup_watchdog();
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_nmi_watchdog);
> 
> 
> 
> Did the old watchdog also touched every CPUs?

Yeah, unfortunately.

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/