linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/10] NOTIFIER: Take over TIF_MCE_NOTIFY and implement task return notifier

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:	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/