linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.0-rc1 v17 5/6] x86/nmi: Use common printk functions

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:	Fri, 06 Mar 2015 19:02:10 +0000
From:	Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	patches@...aro.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.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>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.0-rc1 v17 5/6] x86/nmi: Use common printk functions

On Thu, 2015-03-05 at 20:46 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2015-03-05 at 01:54 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Much of the code sitting in arch/x86/kernel/apic/hw_nmi.c to support 
> > > > safe all-cpu backtracing from NMI has been copied to printk.c to 
> > > > make it accessible to other architectures.
> > > > 
> > > > Port the x86 NMI backtrace to the generic code.
> > > 
> > > Is there any difference between the generic and the x86 code as they 
> > > stand today?
> > 
> > Shouldn't be any user observable change but there are some changes,
> > mostly due to review comments.
> > 
> > 1. The seq_buf structures are initialized at boot and *after* they
> >    are consumed (originally they were initialized just before use).
> > 
> > 2. The generic code doesn't maintain an equivalent of backtrace_mask
> >    (which was essentially a copy of cpus_online made when backtracing
> >    was requested) and instead iterates using for_each_possible_cpu()
> >    to initialize and dump the seq_buf:s.
> 
> Ok, I have no fundamental objections:
> 
> Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> 
> I suspect you want to carry the x86 bits yourself?

I've done plenty of bisectability testing on this set so patches 4 and 5
could be separated from the set and go via the x86 tree. However with
your ack I hope that taking the patchset via the irqchip route should be
possible.

Jason: After I've attended to Joe Perches/Steven Rostedt's comments will
you be comfortable enough to take patches 1-5 through one of your
trees? 

It would be great to deliver patch 6 too but rmk is having a short break
so getting an ack for that may not work out


Daniel.

--
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/