linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 1/6] HWPOISON: clean up memory_failure() vs. __memory

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]

Date:	Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:21:54 -0800
From:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
CC:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
	Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/6] HWPOISON: clean up memory_failure() vs.
 __memory_failure()

> > >  	printk(KERN_ERR "Action optional memory failure at %lx ignored\n", pfn);
> > 
> > Btw., while at it, could we phrase this message in a more 
> > obvious way to users, such as 'Non-fatal memory failure at 
> > %lx ignored'?
> 
> Yeah, that's might not be as correct as we want it to be. AO 
> means it is an uncorrectable error, i.e. it will become fatal 
> if we'd consumed it, but it isn't that now because we just saw 
> it passing by in the cacheline...
> 
> Maybe "Fatal, unconsumed error ignored..."

The overall meaning is "land mine seen but not stepped on yet"

I'll see if I can wordsmith the message to convey that.

-Tony
--
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/