linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/6] x86, NMI: Allow NMI reason io port (0x61) to be processed on any CPU

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: <4D6A332F.3080603@gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:19:11 +0300
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:	huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>
CC:	"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>,
	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>, ying.huang@...el.com,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] x86, NMI: Allow NMI reason io port (0x61) to be processed
 on any CPU

On 02/27/2011 04:01 AM, huang ying wrote:
...
>>
>>   Probably we should put question in another fashion, ie in the fasion of
>> overall design -- who should be
>> responsible for handling external nmis, 1) the cpu which apic is configured
>> to observe such nmis or 2) any cpu?
>> If we take 1) then no lock is needed and underlied code will report real cpu
>> number who observed nmi. If
>> we take 2) then lock is needed but we need a big comment in default_do_nmi
>> together with probably cpu number
>> fixed in serr\iochk printk's.
>
> I am OK with both solutions.
>
> Best Regards,
> Huang Ying

ok, lets see what others think on this thread

-- 
     Cyrill
--
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/