linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] watchdog: control hard lockup detection default

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: <53D8FE46.2000100@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:16:38 +0200
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>, Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
CC:	Ulrich Obergfell <uobergfe@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] watchdog: control hard lockup detection default

Il 30/07/2014 15:43, Don Zickus ha scritto:
>> > Nice catch. Looks like this will need a v2. Paolo, do we have a
>> > consensus on the proc echoing? Or should that be revisited in the v2 as
>> > well?
> As discussed privately, how about something like this to handle that case:
> (applied on top of these patches)

Don, what do you think about proc?

My opinion is still what I mentioned earlier in the thread, i.e. that if
the file says "1", writing "0" and then "1" should not constitute a
change WRT to the initial state.

Paolo
--
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/