linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf stat: Remove nmi watchdog check code again

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:	Thu, 9 Jun 2016 08:17:16 -0700
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, peterz@...radead.org,
	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jolsa@...nel.org,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf stat: Remove nmi watchdog check code again

On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 10:42:08AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 06:14:39AM -0700, Andi Kleen escreveu:
> > From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
> > 
> > Now that the NMI watchdog runs with reference cycles, and does not
> 
> Now as in when? We should at least warn the user that the kernel used is
> one where the NMI watchdog will not get in the way of topdown. Is there
> a programmatic way to discover that?

If the other patch gets merged at the same time as the TopDown patches
it's only a few days in tip which don't support it, no released kernel.
So no need to check for this case.

-Andi