Re: [PATCH] coresight: Remove %px for printing pcsr value

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:00 PM, Leo Yan wrote: > The driver prints pcsr twice: the first time it uses specifier %px to > print hexadecimal pcsr value and the second time uses specifier %pS for > output kernel symbols. > > As suggested by Kees, using %pS should be sufficient

[PATCH] coresight: Remove %px for printing pcsr value

The driver prints pcsr twice: the first time it uses specifier %px to print hexadecimal pcsr value and the second time uses specifier %pS for output kernel symbols. As suggested by Kees, using %pS should be sufficient and %px isn't necessary; the reason is if the pcsr is a kernel space address,

Re: [PATCH v6 0/8] ipc: Clamp *mni to the real IPCMNI limit & increase that limit

> The sysctl parameters msgmni, shmmni and semmni have an inherent limit > of IPC_MNI (32k). However, users may not be aware of that because they > can write a value much higher than that without getting any error or > notification. Reading the parameters back will show the newly written >

Re: [PATCH v7 4/5] cpuset: Restrict load balancing off cpus to subset of cpus.isolated

On 05/01/2018 04:58 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 04:33:45PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >> I think that will work too. We currently don't have a flag to make a >> file visible on first-level children only, but it shouldn't be hard to >> make one. > I think it'd be fine

Re: [PATCH v7 4/5] cpuset: Restrict load balancing off cpus to subset of cpus.isolated

Hello, On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 04:33:45PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > I think that will work too. We currently don't have a flag to make a > file visible on first-level children only, but it shouldn't be hard to > make one. I think it'd be fine to make the flag file exist on all !root cgroups

Re: [PATCH v7 4/5] cpuset: Restrict load balancing off cpus to subset of cpus.isolated

On 05/01/2018 03:51 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Waiman. > > Sorry about the delay. > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 09:47:03AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >> With the addition of "cpuset.cpus.isolated", it makes sense to add the >> restriction that load balancing can only be turned off if the CPUs in

Re: [PATCH v7 4/5] cpuset: Restrict load balancing off cpus to subset of cpus.isolated

Hello, Waiman. Sorry about the delay. On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 09:47:03AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > With the addition of "cpuset.cpus.isolated", it makes sense to add the > restriction that load balancing can only be turned off if the CPUs in > the isolated cpuset are subset of

Re: [PATCH 2/3] seccomp: Audit attempts to modify the actions_logged sysctl

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Steve Grubb wrote: > On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 11:18:55 AM EDT Paul Moore wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote: >> > The decision to log a seccomp action will always be subject to the >> > value of

Re: [PATCH 2/3] seccomp: Audit attempts to modify the actions_logged sysctl

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 11:18:55 AM EDT Paul Moore wrote: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote: > > The decision to log a seccomp action will always be subject to the > > value of the kernel.seccomp.actions_logged sysctl, even for processes > > that are

Re: [PATCH 3/3] seccomp: Don't special case audited processes when logging

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote: > Seccomp logging for "handled" actions such as RET_TRAP, RET_TRACE, or > RET_ERRNO can be very noisy for processes that are being audited. This > patch modifies the seccomp logging behavior to treat processes that are >

Re: [PATCH 2/3] seccomp: Audit attempts to modify the actions_logged sysctl

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote: > The decision to log a seccomp action will always be subject to the > value of the kernel.seccomp.actions_logged sysctl, even for processes > that are being inspected via the audit subsystem, in an upcoming patch. >

Re: [PATCH v6 3/8] sysctl: Warn when a clamped sysctl parameter is set out of range

On 04/30/2018 06:40 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > I like this series overall, thanks! No objections from me. One thing I > noted, though: > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 2:00 PM, Waiman Long wrote: >> if (param->min && *param->min > val) { >> if

Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] ThunderX2: Add Cavium ThunderX2 SoC UNCORE PMU driver

Hi Kim, On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:56:25AM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote: > On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 17:09:14 +0100 > Will Deacon wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:46:29AM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote: > > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 15:37:20 +0100 > > > Will Deacon