linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/21 v2] amd64

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:30:31 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, greg@...ah.com, <mingo@...e.hu>,
	<tglx@...utronix.de>, <hpa@...or.com>, <dougthompson@...ssion.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/21 v2] amd64_edac: EDAC module for AMD64

Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> thanks to all reviewers of the previous submission, here is the second
> version of this series.

The classic problem of the previous versions of these patches was that
they consume the same error registers (even if using pci config versus
msrs as access methods) as the kernel machine check poll/threshold
interrupt code.  And with two logging agents racing on the same
registers you will always get junk results. Typically with threshold 
enabled the mce code wins the race. I suspect this patchkit has
exactly the same fundamental design problem. EDAC really is not
particularly fitting for integrated memory controllers that report
their errors using standard machine check events.

-Andi (who thinks all of this decoding should be in user space anyways)

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/