| 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: <4F1EC2BA.90403@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:39:54 +0200 From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> To: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com> CC: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, 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 01/13/2012 09:41 AM, Tony Luck wrote: > 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. > Also, nothing bounds the time until a urn executes. If the cpu stays in the kernel forever, it will never fire. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- 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