similar to: Masking out the Protected Processor Identification Number

Hi all, I've just filed PR12794: Add ARM cpu / subtarget features auto-detection. And I would very much appreciate the community's help to implement this. What motivated this? Well this: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTA5OTM I believe one of the reason the benchmark numbers are totally bogus is that the compilation are done on ARM hosts. Given the benchmarks are

> I've just filed PR12794: Add ARM cpu / subtarget features auto-detection. And I would very much appreciate the community's help to implement this. > > What motivated this? Well this: > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTA5OTM > > I believe one of the reason the benchmark numbers are totally bogus is that the compilation are done on ARM hosts.

Hi *, I have read several news [1 2 3 ] about clang supporting asm-goto. is that for real? :) so I tried to compile the Linux Kernel (master branch) with clang built from source, the actual version im using is the following: """ clang version 9.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git f8ffb926e206982c57d862d12fe0004a135e014c) """ but I still get "compiler

Prowling around in the system logs this morning I discover the following entries: May 27 09:48:27 vhost01 mcelog: Cannot open logfile /var/log/mcelog: Permission denied May 27 09:48:27 vhost01 mcelog: failed to prefill DIMM database from DMI data May 27 09:48:27 vhost01 mcelog: Cannot bind to client unix socket `/var/run/mcel og-client': Permission denied and later: vhost01 setroubleshoot:

Ok, we've got a new machine that's throwing ECC errors. I've gotten new memory overnighted to me from the manufacturer, and replaced it, oops, not that end of the bank, as their support told me, this end of the bank, as the mobo manual I found online shows (Supermicro). Still throwing errors. Ok, try to get more info.... Last week, I moved /var/log/mcelog to /var/log/mcelog.1, and

On 11/05/12 04:56, 陳韋任 wrote: >> I've just filed PR12794: Add ARM cpu / subtarget features auto-detection. And I would very much appreciate the community's help to implement this. >> >> What motivated this? Well this: >> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTA5OTM >> >> I believe one of the reason the benchmark numbers are totally

On Mon, February 1, 2016 1:33 pm, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: > Excerpt: > Running rm -rf / on any UEFI Linux distribution can potentially > perma-brick your system. Yes, I kind of like "rm -rf /". If my memory doesn't fail me, long ago it was one of the tricky questions in sysadmin exam (not that anymore if I read what you, Michael, write further correctly...). Anyway,

> On Feb 2, 2016, at 17:57, Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu> wrote: > > Dear All, > > Suppose I executed the command > > rm -rf / There was also this article recently that pointed out that if the box boots via UEFI, you may brick the machine, depending on setup. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=UEFI-rm-root-directory ? Nate

On May 11, 2012, at 12:25 AM, James Molloy wrote: > On 11/05/12 04:56, 陳韋任 wrote: >>> I've just filed PR12794: Add ARM cpu / subtarget features auto-detection. And I would very much appreciate the community's help to implement this. >>> >>> What motivated this? Well this: >>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTA5OTM

On 02/05/16 14:55, Nathan Duehr wrote: > >> On Feb 2, 2016, at 17:57, Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu> wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> Suppose I executed the command >> >> rm -rf / > > There was also this article recently that pointed out that if the box boots via UEFI, you may brick the machine, depending on setup. > >

On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 12:40 PM Sanjoy Das via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi Samuel, > > You can't expect alloca's to reliably lower to stack pointer > adjustments. The semantics of alloca is more high level -- it give > you an abstract memory location that lives and dies with the function > frame, but there is no guarantee that it will

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58378 --- Comment #19 from Andreas Loew <awl1 at gmx.net> --- Hello, I would like to join discussions in this bug, as I have found myself affected after the recent update from Red Hat Enterprise Linux/Oracle Linux 6.4 (stock RHEL kernel 2.6.32-358.23.2) to RHEL/OL 6.5 (RHEL kernel 2.6.32-431). My graphics card is NVidia Quadro NVS 130M: BOOT0

Hi Konrad, Sometime ago i reported this one at boot up: [ 3009.778974] mcelog:16842 map pfn expected mapping type write-back for [mem 0x0009f000-0x000a0fff], got uncached-minus [ 3009.788570] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 3009.798175] WARNING: at arch/x86/mm/pat.c:774 untrack_pfn+0xa1/0xb0() [ 3009.807966] Hardware name: MS-7640 [ 3009.817677] Modules linked in: [ 3009.827524] Pid:

Hello Samba list subscribers, i have a permission issue when moving files or directories (rename syscall) between directories with different permissions in my share. I'm using POSIX ACLs on my shares. These are my users: user.one (uid: 101111, gid: 101111) SAMDOM\Domain Users (gid: 100513) I've got the following directories: This is the private (home) directory of user.one. The user

On 06/08/2019 14:22, S?ren Busse via samba wrote: > Hello Samba list subscribers, > > i have a permission issue when moving files or directories (rename > syscall) between directories with different permissions in my share. > I'm using POSIX ACLs on my shares. > > These are my users: > user.one (uid: 101111, gid: 101111) > SAMDOM\Domain Users (gid: 100513) > >

I'm also a bit unclear on that point. I think one input here has to be: what are some example, existing codebases we want to mitigate, and what should the user experience be to mitigate them? I don't think we can make good engineering tradeoffs without having concrete use cases to evaluate. Another point: it seems some mitigation options have already been added to the GNU toolchain

CentOS 6.4, 2.6.32-358.11.1.el6.x86_64 (And no, I can't just upgrade - the users have to be sure that the computational results will be correct....) It's throwing ECC errors. Trying to start mcelogd, first it said nothing. Restart told me "Please load edac_mce_amd module." I did a modprobe edac_mce_amd, and lsmod tells me it's in. But now service mcelogd restart Stopping

Hi there, I'am running CentOS 5.1 on a Dual AMD Opteron QuadCore System, without major issues so far. But if I call mcelog I'am getting the message "Cannot open /dev/mcelog" ... because it's not there. I'am running 2.6.18-53.1.4.el5xen kernel, is this related in any form? I found something similar for the debian universe: http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-bugs-closed

CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2011:0512 Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0512.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename ) x86_64: 770b7960cc4a775b21bdc7c282c90a42 mcelog-0.9pre-1.32.el5.x86_64.rpm Source: 4e4826b260464bf1ae5f5c9311c76557 mcelog-0.9pre-1.32.el5.src.rpm -- Johnny Hughes

Hello community. We are running, Centos 4.8 on SuperMicro SYS-6026T-3RF with 2xIntel Xeon E5630 and 8xKingston KVR1333D3D4R9S/4G For some time we have lots of MCE in mcelog and we cant find out the reason. "Ordinary" mce message looks like: CPU 51 BANK 8 TSC 8511e3ca77dc MISC 274d587f00006141 ADDR 807044840 STATUS cc0055000001009f MCGSTATUS 0 decode with mcelog --ascii --cpu p4(cause