linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Shared NMI backtracing support for ARM/x86

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: <55A77F87.4050508@linaro.org>
Date:	Thu, 16 Jul 2015 10:55:19 +0100
From:	Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, x86@...nel.org
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Shared NMI backtracing support for ARM/x86

On 15/07/15 21:39, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> Back in September, I stumbled across a single CPU IRQs-off lockup of an
> ARM SMP system, and decided to hack something together based on a much
> older hacky implementation used with StrongARM CPUs from early 2000s.
>
> This resulted in a copy of the x86 NMI backtrace code into ARM as it was
> back then, and feedback indicated that it wasn't a good time to push
> such an effort forward, as printk() in NMI context is dodgy.
>
> Over time, the x86 code has had this problem addressed, and last week
> I updated the patch which I've been carrying in my tree to move the
> shared code out of arch/x86 into lib/ rather than duplicating it, and
> switch the ARM implementation to use it.
>
> Discussing this with Thomas Gliexner, he agreed to give it a test over
> last weekend, and he has reported to me this evening "no explosion so
> far".  Since then, I've made a change to add the NOKPROBE_SYMBOL() to
> the generic handler as per the x86 original code.
>
> I'm aware that there are other competing implementations out there -
> Daniel has one based on my patch from September time, but I don't think
> that goes far enough with code sharing.  I'm also partially aware of
> an implementation from Petr too.

No worries. I agree this approach is much cleaner with regards to code 
sharing.


--
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/