linux-kernel - RE: [RFC][PATCH v4 -next 1/4] Move kmsg_dump(KMSG_DUMP_PANIC) below smp_send

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: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28FBB21@ORSMSX104.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 5 Jan 2012 19:06:51 +0000
From:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:	Seiji Aguchi <seiji.aguchi@....com>,
	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
CC:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	"Chen, Gong" <gong.chen@...el.com>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
	"'ying.huang@...el.com'" <'ying.huang@...el.com'>,
	"'ak@...ux.intel.com'" <'ak@...ux.intel.com'>,
	"'hughd@...omium.org'" <'hughd@...omium.org'>,
	"'mingo@...e.hu'" <'mingo@...e.hu'>,
	"jmorris@...ei.org" <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	"a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"namhyung@...il.com" <namhyung@...il.com>,
	"dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
	<dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	Satoru Moriya <satoru.moriya@....com>
Subject: RE: [RFC][PATCH v4 -next 1/4] Move kmsg_dump(KMSG_DUMP_PANIC) below
 smp_send_stop()

-	kmsg_dump(KMSG_DUMP_PANIC);
-
 	/*
 	 * Note smp_send_stop is the usual smp shutdown function, which
 	 * unfortunately means it may not be hardened to work in a panic
@@ -117,6 +115,8 @@ void panic(const char *fmt, ...)
 	 */
 	smp_send_stop();
 
+	kmsg_dump(KMSG_DUMP_PANIC);
+

Aren't you worried about the comment about smp_send_stop() not
being hardened to work in a panic situation?

If it does work - we are clearly much better off moving the
kmsg_dump() call down like this. It makes life much simpler
and cleaner to work with just one running cpu.

But if something goes wrong - we might not see the dump at all!

How do we compare these cases and decide that it is better to
trust that smp_send_stop() will return?

-Tony
--
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/