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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 11:17:03 +0100 From: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org> To: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org> Cc: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>, Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org> Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] Introduce NMI aware serial drivers On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 02:55:12PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 at 05:38, Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 8:27 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote: > > > One > > > last worry is that I assume that most people testing (and even > > > automated testing labs) will either always enable NMI or won't enable > > > NMI. That means that everyone will be only testing one codepath or > > > the other and (given the complexity) the non-tested codepath will > > > break. > > > > > The current patch-set only makes this NMI to work when debugger (kgdb) > is enabled which I think is mostly suitable for development > environments. So most people testing will involve existing IRQ mode > only. > > However, it's very much possible to make NMI mode as default for a > particular serial driver if the underlying irqchip supports it but it > depends if we really see any production level usage of NMI debug > feature. The effect of this patch is not to make kgdb work from NMI it is to make (some) SysRqs work from NMI. I think that only allowing it to deploy for kgdb users is a mistake. Having it deploy automatically for kgdb users might be OK but it seems sensible to make this feature available for other users too. Daniel.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists