linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] Make hard lockup detection use timestamps

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: <CAAuSN92zxF9ZDuMhgrB_sBUrt+O4jGJ=AMe_iNMYSwXo9o79Kw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:11:27 -0700
From:	ZAK Magnus <zakmagnus@...gle.com>
To:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] Make hard lockup detection use timestamps

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:
> One idea I thought of to workaround this is to save the timestamp and the
> watchdog bool and restore after the stack dump.  It's a cheap hack and I
> am not to sure about the locking as it might race with
> touch_nmi_watchdog().  But it gives you an idea what I was thinking.
Yes, I see. Is the hackiness of it okay?

> Being in the nmi context, no one can normally touch these variables,
> except for another cpu using touch_nmi_watchdog() (or watchdog_enable()
> but that should never race in these scenarios).
Well, the soft lockup stuff is not a NMI but just a regular interrupt,
right? Is that also okay?
--
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/