On Thu, 12 May 2011, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Funnily enough, back then you wrote this:
>
> " I'm concerned that we're seeing yet another security scheme being
> designed on
> the fly, without a well-formed threat model, and without taking into
> account
> lessons learned from the seemin
Hello list,
I'm currently attempting to get Linux running on a custom board and have
gotten to the point of trying to get our IDE FlashCard working. I have
ported u-boot and have the flash card working as expected (as in being
able to read and write sectors) so it looks like it is possible to
Enable iSCSI support for a number of cards. We had the base
networking devices enabled but forgot to enable iSCSI.
Signed-off-by: Anton Blanchard
---
v2: I added the bnx2 iscsi twice.
Index: junk/arch/powerpc/configs/pseries_defconfig
===
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 03:04:18AM +0800, wanlong@gmail.com wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH] fix build warnings on defconfigs
>
> From: Wanlong Gao
>
> Change the BT_L2CAP and BT_SCO defconfigs from 'm' to 'y',
> since BT_L2CAP and BT_SCO had changed to bool configs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wanlong Ga
So what is the best way to handle this? It appears (based
on the comments of others and my own experience) that there
is no DCR that exists and behaves the way that previous SOCs
behaved to give us the link status? The register above
PECFGn_DLLSTA is actually in the PCIe configuration space so
we
[Thanks to everyone for the continued feedback and insights - I appreciate it!]
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * James Morris wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 May 2011, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> > 2) Why should this concept not be made available wider, to allow the
>> > restrict
* James Morris wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2011, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > 2) Why should this concept not be made available wider, to allow the
> >restriction of not just system calls but other security relevant
> > components
> >of the kernel as well?
>
> Because the aim of this is to r
On Thu, 12 May 2011 10:31:08 -0500
Scott Wood wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2011 01:11:03 -0500
> Li Yang-R58472 wrote:
>
> > >diff --git a/arch/powerpc/configs/e55xx_smp_defconfig
> > >b/arch/powerpc/configs/e55xx_smp_defconfig
> > >index 9fa1613..f4c5780 100644
> > >--- a/arch/powerpc/configs/e55xx
On Thu, 12 May 2011 01:11:03 -0500
Li Yang-R58472 wrote:
> >Subject: [linuxppc-release] [PATCH 1/2] powerpc, e5500: add networking to
> >defconfig
> >
> >Even though support for the p5020's on-chip ethernet is not yet upstream,
> >it is not appropriate to disable all networking support (including
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:37 AM, wrote:
> Hi Mattheew,
>
> such oops you can get also with spi.
> For such problem helps to compile your kernel with other preemption
> model:
> - preempt
> - standard
> - !!! but not voluntary preemption !!!
Thanks Sergej, indeed I'm currently using CONFIG_PRE
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 04:13:54AM -0500, Milton Miller wrote:
>
> Move the smp_rmb after cpu_relax loop in read_seqlock and add
> ACCESS_ONCE to make sure the test and return are consistent.
>
> A multi-threaded core in the lab didn't like the update
Which core was that?
-Andi
Andrew Morton wrote:
> The changelog doesn't permit me to determine the importance of this
> fix,
> so I don't know whether to schedule it for 2.6.39 or for -stable.
Sorry, my fault. This patch is applicable to kernel versions starting
from 2.6.37.
__
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 09:48:50AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> To restrict execution to system calls.
>
> Two observations:
>
> 1) We already have a specific ABI for this: you can set filters for events
> via
>an event fd.
>
>Why not extend that mechanism instead and improve *both* you
On Thu, 12 May 2011, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> 2) Why should this concept not be made available wider, to allow the
>restriction of not just system calls but other security relevant
> components
>of the kernel as well?
Because the aim of this is to reduce the attack surface of the syscal
On Wed, 11 May 2011, Will Drewry wrote:
> +void seccomp_filter_log_failure(int syscall)
> +{
> + printk(KERN_INFO
> + "%s[%d]: system call %d (%s) blocked at ip:%lx\n",
> + current->comm, task_pid_nr(current), syscall,
> + syscall_nr_to_name(syscall), KSTK_E
Am 12.05.2011 um 13:16 schrieb Benjamin Herrenschmidt
:
> On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 11:33 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> Am 11.05.2011 um 12:39 schrieb Paul Mackerras :
>>
>>> Commits a5d4f3ad3a ("powerpc: Base support for exceptions using
>>> HSRR0/1") and 673b189a2e ("powerpc: Always use SPRN_SP
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 11:33 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Am 11.05.2011 um 12:39 schrieb Paul Mackerras :
>
> > Commits a5d4f3ad3a ("powerpc: Base support for exceptions using
> > HSRR0/1") and 673b189a2e ("powerpc: Always use SPRN_SPRG_HSCRATCH0
> > when running in HV mode") cause compile and li
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:33:00AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> Am 11.05.2011 um 12:39 schrieb Paul Mackerras :
>
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_rmhandlers.S
> > b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_rmhandlers.S
> > index ae99af6..1a1b344 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_rmhandlers.S
* Kees Cook wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 09:48:50AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 1) We already have a specific ABI for this: you can set filters for events
> > via
> >an event fd.
> >
> >Why not extend that mechanism instead and improve *both* your sandboxing
> >bits
Hi,
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 09:48:50AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 1) We already have a specific ABI for this: you can set filters for events
> via
>an event fd.
>
>Why not extend that mechanism instead and improve *both* your sandboxing
>bits and the events code? This new seccomp c
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 03:09 -0500, Milton Miller wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 about 20:58:18 -, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > We keep track of the size of the lowest block of memory and call
> > setup_initial_memory_limit() only after we've parsed them all
> >
>
> Good, we lose our sensit
Commit-ID: 5db1256a5131d3b133946fa02ac9770a784e6eb2
Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/5db1256a5131d3b133946fa02ac9770a784e6eb2
Author: Milton Miller
AuthorDate: Thu, 12 May 2011 04:13:54 -0500
Committer: Thomas Gleixner
CommitDate: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:13:43 +0200
seqlock: Don't smp_rmb
Le jeudi 12 mai 2011 à 04:13 -0500, Milton Miller a écrit :
> Move the smp_rmb after cpu_relax loop in read_seqlock and add
> ACCESS_ONCE to make sure the test and return are consistent.
>
> A multi-threaded core in the lab didn't like the update
> from 2.6.35 to 2.6.36, to the point it would hang
Am 11.05.2011 um 12:39 schrieb Paul Mackerras :
> Commits a5d4f3ad3a ("powerpc: Base support for exceptions using
> HSRR0/1") and 673b189a2e ("powerpc: Always use SPRN_SPRG_HSCRATCH0
> when running in HV mode") cause compile and link errors for 32-bit
> classic Book 3S processors when KVM is enab
Move the smp_rmb after cpu_relax loop in read_seqlock and add
ACCESS_ONCE to make sure the test and return are consistent.
A multi-threaded core in the lab didn't like the update
from 2.6.35 to 2.6.36, to the point it would hang during
boot when multiple threads were active. Bisection showed
af5
On 05/11/2011 01:44 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
This adds support for KVM running on 64-bit Book 3S processors,
specifically POWER7, in hypervisor mode. Using hypervisor mode means
that the guest can use the processor's supervisor mode. That means
that the guest can execute privileged instruction
Hi Mattheew,
such oops you can get also with spi.
For such problem helps to compile your kernel with other preemption
model:
- preempt
- standard
- !!! but not voluntary preemption !!!
The other possibility: check your board, may be it has some memory
problems.
Regards
Sergej.
Am Mittwoch, d
On Wed, 11 May 2011 about 21:18:11 +0200, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Milton Miller wrote:
> > When allocating irqs, wait to clear the IRQ_NOREQUEST flag until the
> > host map hook has been called.
> >
> > When freeing irqs, set the IRQ_NOREQUEST flag before calling the
On Wed, 11 May 2011 about 20:58:18 -, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> We keep track of the size of the lowest block of memory and call
> setup_initial_memory_limit() only after we've parsed them all
>
Good, we lose our sensitivity to device node ordering.
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/p
Ok, i like the direction here, but i think the ABI should be done differently.
In this patch the ftrace event filter mechanism is used:
* Will Drewry wrote:
> +static struct seccomp_filter *alloc_seccomp_filter(int syscall_nr,
> +const char *filt
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 00:25, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/ps3/system-bus.c
> > b/arch/powerpc/platforms/ps3/system-bus.c
> > index 23083c3..688141c 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/ps3/system-bus.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/ps3/system-bus.c
31 matches
Mail list logo
