linux-kernel - Re: x86, mce, Use user return notifier in mce

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:	Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:41:57 -0800
From:	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>,
	Chen Gong <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: x86, mce, Use user return notifier in mce

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
> You are right.  User return notifier can not be used for SRAR.  I think
> that may be useful for SRAO.  Where we need a way to do notify earlier
> in case of the corresponding work_queue item is not executed in time.

OK - I've been so focused on SRAR that I didn't think of the SRAO case.
But even there it seems odd to use user return notifier. We'd like the
SRAO work item to be executed promptly - but we don't care where it
is executed. So the "execute on this cpu" part of user return notifiers
doesn't quite fit.

Is there a concept of "high priority work queue"?

-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/