linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.19-rc2 v14 0/7] arm: Implement arch_trigger_all_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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 20 Jan 2015 12:53:33 -0800
From:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To:	Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>
CC:	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	patches@...aro.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
	Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@...bosch.com>,
	Daniel Drake <drake@...lessm.com>,
	Dmitry Pervushin <dpervushin@...il.com>,
	Tim Sander <tim@...eglstein.org>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.19-rc2 v14 0/7] arm: Implement arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace

On 01/20/2015 02:25 AM, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On 13/01/15 10:26, Daniel Thompson wrote:
>> Hi Thomas, Hi Jason:
>>     Patches 1 to 3 are for you (and should be separable from the rest
>>     of the series). The patches haven't changes since the last time
>>     I posted them. The changes in v14 tidy up the later part of the
>>     patch set in order to share more code between x86 and arm.
> No review comments! Have I finally got this right?
>
> If so it possible and/or sensible to get patches 1-3 in a tree that
> feeds linux-next. I'd really like the gic changes to meet the various
> ARM build and boot bots.

With this patchset, is it possible to call sched_clock() from within NMI
context? I ask because the generic sched_clock() code is not NMI safe
today. We were planning on making it NMI safe by doing something similar
to what was done for ktime_get_mono_fast_ns() but we haven't gotten
around to it. Mostly because no architecture that uses generic
sched_clock() has support for NMIs right now.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

--
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/