linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3] iommu/intel: Ratelimit each dmar fault printing

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: <20180315142253.GC5259@8bytes.org>
Date:   Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:22:53 +0100
From:   Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
To:     Dmitry Safonov <dima@...sta.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 0x7f454c46@...il.com,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3] iommu/intel: Ratelimit each dmar fault printing

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 02:13:03PM +0000, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> So, you suggest to remove ratelimit at all?
> Do we really need printk flood for each happened fault?
> Imagine, you've hundreds of mappings and then PCI link flapped..
> Wouldn't it be better to keep ratelimiting?
> I don't mind, just it looks a bit strange to me.

I never said you should remove the ratelimiting, after all you are
trying to fix a soft-lockup, no?

And that should not be fixed by changes to the ratelimiting, but with
proper irq handling.


	Joerg