linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] x86, apic, kexec: Add disable_cpu

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:27:21 -0700
From:	jerry.hoemann@...com
To:	HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	hpa@...ux.intel.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com, vgoyal@...hat.com,
	kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	bp@...en8.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, fengguang.wu@...el.com,
	jingbai.ma@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] x86, apic, kexec: Add disable_cpu_apic kernel
 parameter

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 01:49:41PM +0900, HATAYAMA Daisuke wrote:
> 
> Thanks for your testing.
> 
> >I have seen no issues w/ the 3.0.80 dump testing on our proto.
> >
> >On the 2.6.32 testing on our proto, i have hit a low probability (< 5%)
> >chance of the capture suffering a soft lockup hang during
> >"Switching to clocksource hpet."  I have not RCA'd this yet.
> >Note, I have seen this issue on earlier version of the patch, so
> >it is not specific to this version.
> >
> >I then tested the 2.6.32 port on a dl380.  This worked without issue.
> >
> >Note, I have seen no issues related to this patch on our proto when
> >booting the capture with a single processor.
> >
> >While I am still pursuing the issue of the 2.6.32 kernel on our proto,
> >I believe this patch is good and should be accepted.
> >
> 
> This seems there's something that depends on the system you used. But I
> have never verified my patch set on 2.6.32-based kernel. I'll try to
> do a similar test on some FJ systems.
> 
> The 2.6.32-based kernel you mean is one of the Longterm release kernels,
> right? So, you used on the test the 2.6.32-based Longterm release kernel
> with my v4 patch, right?


I've been using 2.6.32 and 3.0.80 based kernels from different distros.
These are not the same as long term kernels on kernel.org.


I see you've posted an updated version of the patch.  i've picked it
up and will test.


-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Hoemann            Software Engineer              Hewlett-Packard/MODL

3404 E Harmony Rd. MS 57                        phone:  (970) 898-1022
Ft. Collins, CO 80528                           FAX:    (970) 898-XXXX
                                                email:  jerry.hoemann@...com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
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/