linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] kernel: Add support for restart notifier call chain

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]

Message-Id: <20140710174425.2f3fea98.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 10 Jul 2014 17:44:25 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:	linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Jonas Jensen <jonas.jensen@...il.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@...il.com>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] kernel: Add support for restart notifier call
 chain

On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 17:15:49 -0700 Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:

> Error on my part - I thought lower numbers would
> have higher priority, but after looking into the code again that
> is wrong.

You shouldn't have needed to look into the code :( Maybe a
documentation patch for notifier_block.priority for the next person?

> To avoid making things too complicated, maybe it would make sense to
> specify guidelines for notifier priorities, such as
> 0   - restart notifier of last resort, with least reset capabilities
> 128 - default; use if no other notifier is expected to be available
>        and/or if restart functionality is acceptable
> 255 - highest priority notifier which _must_ be used
> 
> Would that make sense and be acceptable ? In this context, I would then
> set the notifier priorities for the callers in the patch set to 128.

Yep, that sounds nice.  It's unlikely to see a lot of use, but at least
we showed we thought about it ;)
--
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/