netdev - Re: [PATCH]: Add Network Sysrq Support

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]

Message-Id: <9A104657-E760-4489-A92E-7DF04CC0EE6C@oracle.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 Jun 2011 19:46:20 +0100
From:	John Haxby <jch@...haxbys.co.uk>
To:	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, fbl@...hat.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, agospoda@...hat.com, nhorman@...hat.com,
	lwoodman@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Add Network Sysrq Support


On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:39, Prarit Bhargava wrote:

> 
>> Although I wasn't sure that it could happen, it's also possible that the
>> cryptographic functions can get in your way.  xt_SYSRQ does its best to
>> avoid problems by pre-allocating everything it can so there is as little
>> as possible to do when it is needed, but it is possible for it to fail.
>> 
>> 
> 
> My running theory as to the failure is that the CPU that took the sysrq
> is also the CPU that was having problems that resulted in the "slow
> down" of the system.
> 
> On a known-good system, xt_SYSRQ behaves properly AFAICT.  It functions
> exactly the way we want it to.
> 
> So ... I read the following discussion of xt_SYSRQ from last year:
> 
> http://www.kerneltrap.com/mailarchive/linux-netdev/2010/4/21/6275199/thread
> 
> And it seems there were no technical objections to the code, but there
> were other concerns.
> 
> davem -- as I don't monitor this list, are you indicating that you are
> more amenable to this code being accepted upstream?  Or is that part of
> the debate still ongoing?
> 
> 

I've just re-read the thread and I'm reminded that I never did submit the xt_SYSRQ hash update I mentioned at the end of the thread.

davem: I'm more than happy to push that patch through if it will make xt_SYSRQ more acceptable.

jch

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html