linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v10 0/4] Lock-less list

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]

Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:11:43 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v10 0/4] Lock-less list


* Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:

> + Tony.
> 
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 02:06:25PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > * huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> > But will all that stuff be accepted? Please stop sending infrastructure bits and
> > > >> > focus on your larger RAS picture, once you have consensus on that from all
> > > >> > parties involved, then, and only then, does it make sense to submit everything,
> > > >> > including infrastructure.
> > > >>
> > > >> I am not sending hardware error reporting infrastructure.  As far as I know, Linus
> > > >> and Andrew suggest to use printk for hardware error reporting.  And now, I just
> > > >> try to write APEI driver and reporting hardware error with printk.  Is it
> > > >> acceptable?  Do you have some other idea about hardware error reporting?
> > > >
> > > > Erm, how could you possible have missed the perf based RAS daemon work of Boris,
> > > > which we've pointed out about half a dozen times already?
> > > 
> > > Even if there is some other hardware error reporting infrastructure
> > > such as perf based, I think we still need printk too. After all, as
> > > Linus pointed out, printk is the most popular error reporting
> > > mechanism so far. Do you think so?
> > 
> > Of course, that's why the upstream EDAC code uses printk too. In fact it does all 
> > sorts of in-kernel decoding to make the printk output more useful - the /dev/mcelog 
> > method of pushing all decoding to user-space is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> True story. And yet google folk still do that, unfortunately:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/1/10/419

I wouldnt worry about that too much - such uses are extremely isolated.

If we give RAS functionality that gives the limited capabilities of /dev/mcelog and 
much more then the migration path is clear towards the superior solution.

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/