| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20110612223840.GA23218@aftab> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 00:38:40 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org> To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>, Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] NOTIFIER: Take over TIF_MCE_NOTIFY and implement task return notifier On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 05:36:42PM -0400, Luck, Tony wrote: > From: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com> > > Existing user return notifier mechanism is designed to catch a specific > cpu just as it returns to run any task in user mode. We also need a > machanism to catch a specific task. Why do we need that? I mean, in the remaining patches we end up either running memory_failure() or sending signals to a task. Can't we do it all in the user return notifier and not have a different notifier for each policy? Thanks. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Advanced Micro Devices GmbH Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach GM: Alberto Bozzo Reg: Dornach, Landkreis Muenchen HRB Nr. 43632 WEEE Registernr: 129 19551 -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists