linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] EDAC updates for v6.9

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 10:29:33 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, x86-ml <x86@...nel.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-edac <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] EDAC updates for v6.9

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:16:10AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> If you mean forcing CONFIG_SMP via 'select SMP' on x86 on the other
> hand, that's worth considering

Yeah, that.

> - although I think there will be a ton of extra cross-build breakage
> as most patches still get created & tested on x86.

I wanna say "this better be build-tested on the target architecture too"
but I can certainly see the use case of having to cross-build a UP
config.

> I think the most viable approach would be to make SMP the only model
> all across the kernel (and eventually removing the CONFIG_SMP option),
> while propagating UP data structures and locking primitives to the UP
> arch level, instead of having CONFIG_SMP #ifdefs in generic code.

Right, UP is a SMP machine with only 1 CPU. It should just work. :-P

> Maybe not today, but certainly in a few years.

It makes sense to aim for such a model, yap. Let's do it.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette