linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] watchdog: Split up config options

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: <20170616015900.0d133913@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Jun 2017 01:59:00 +1000
From:   Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To:     Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc:     Babu Moger <babu.moger@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] watchdog: Split up config options

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 11:51:22 -0400
Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 01:04:01PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR
> > >   /* boot commands */
> > >   /*
> > >    * Should we panic when a soft-lockup or hard-lockup occurs:
> > > @@ -69,9 +73,6 @@ static int __init hardlockup_panic_setup(char *str)
> > >          return 1;
> > >   }
> > >   __setup("nmi_watchdog=", hardlockup_panic_setup);
> > > -
> > > -#else
> > > -unsigned long __read_mostly watchdog_enabled = SOFT_WATCHDOG_ENABLED;
> > >   #endif
> > > 
> > >   #ifdef CONFIG_SOFTLOCKUP_DETECTOR  
> > 
> > Hmm, I guess I missed this because sparc parses nmi_watchdog=, but it
> > also relies on the watchdog_enabled value.
> > 
> > I guess I can fold your incremental patch in. I hope we could get
> > sparc quickly to adopt the complate HAVE_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR_ARCH soon
> > afterwards though, so we only have 2 cases -- complete hardlockup
> > detector, or the very bare minimum NMI_WATCHDOG.  
> 
> Hi Nick,
> 
> I agree.  Let's move forward with this temp fix just to get things in the
> kernel for initial testing.  Then follow up with a cleanup patch.  The idea
> is we can always revert the cleanup patch if things still don't quite work.
> 
> Thoughts?

Hi Don,

Yeah that sounds good to me. Would you like me to re-test things
and resend the series?

Thanks,
Nick