linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 24/29] watchdog/hardlockup: Use parse_option_str() to handle "nmi

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:   Fri, 13 May 2022 16:17:54 -0700
From:   Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri@...el.com>,
        Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 24/29] watchdog/hardlockup: Use parse_option_str() to
 handle "nmi_watchdog"

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 08:46:41PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> Excerpts from Ricardo Neri's message of May 6, 2022 10:00 am:
> > Prepare hardlockup_panic_setup() to handle a comma-separated list of
> > options. Thus, it can continue parsing its own command-line options while
> > ignoring parameters that are relevant only to specific implementations of
> > the hardlockup detector. Such implementations may use an early_param to
> > parse their own options.
> 
> It can't really handle comma separated list though, until the next
> patch. nmi_watchdog=panic,0 does not make sense, so you lost error
> handling of that.

Yes that is true. All possible combinations need to be checked.

> 
> And is it kosher to double handle options like this? I'm sure it
> happens but it's ugly.
> 
> Would you consider just add a new option for x86 and avoid changing
> this? Less code and patches.

Sure, I can not modify this code and add a x86-specific command-line
option.

Thanks and BR,
Ricardo