linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86, nmi_watchdog: Remove ARCH_HAS_NMI_WATCHDOG and rely on CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP

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: <20101222112636.GH3127@elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 22 Dec 2010 12:26:36 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, fweisbec@...il.com,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	dannf@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, nmi_watchdog:  Remove ARCH_HAS_NMI_WATCHDOG and
 rely on CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR


* Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 04:33:26PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > The x86 arch has shifted its use of the nmi_watchdog from a local implementation 
> > > to the global one provide by kernel/watchdog.c.  This shift has caused a whole 
> > > bunch of compile problems under different config options.  I attempt to simplify 
> > > things with the patch below.
> > 
> > ok, this patch is looking better - but even after applying it to -tip (and resolving 
> > the conflict) i get this link failure on 64-bit allyesconfig:
> 
> Sorry about the conflict.  I guess I stupidly based the patch ontop of the
> small hack patch I sent to you a couple of hours before I sent this patch.
> 
> > 
> > watchdog.c:(.text+0x7eacc): undefined reference to `hw_nmi_get_sample_period'
> 
> That said, I'm not sure how you resolved the conflict, but the define
> ARCH_HAS_NMI_WATCHDOG should not be in the arch/x86/kernel/apic/hw_nmi.c
> file.
> 
> Other than that, I am unable to reproduce the error you are seeing.
> Looking at the code, 'hw_nmi_get_sample_period' is defined in one file and
> called in one spot in another file.  Both cases that code is wrapped only
> with CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR, so I at a loss on where it would fail.
> 
> Do you have a branch I can look at it, just to double check?

Not anymore - could you please send a patch that applies cleanly to -tip - that way 
we eliminate all misinterpretation.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/