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: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 15:34:38 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, kernel-team@...com,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86,mm: print likely CPU at segfault time
On Mon, 2021-07-19 at 12:20 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> If it's as trivial as:
>
> printk(KERN_CONT " on cpu/core %d/%d",
> raw_smp_processor_id(),
> topology_core_id(raw_smp_processor_id()));
>
> it would be handy. But, it's also not hard to look at 10 segfaults,
> see
> that they happened only on 2 CPUs and realize that hyperthreading is
> enabled.
One problem with topology_core_id() is that that, on a
multi-socket system, the core number may not be unique.
That is why I ended up going with just the CPU number.
It's pretty easy to put one and one together afterwards.
Thanks for your quick patch review.
--
All Rights Reversed.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists