linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v2 3/7] x86, NMI, Rename memory parity error to PCI SERR error

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]

Message-ID: <20100928153854.GM26290@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:38:54 -0400
From:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc:	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 3/7] x86, NMI, Rename memory parity error to PCI SERR
 error

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 09:33:37AM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 00:45 +0800, Robert Richter wrote:
> > > > > Ok. I will add CPU ID in message. Because we know the reason, I don't
> > > > > think we need the reason in message.
> > > > 
> > > > You only know that bit 7 is set, not the rest. As this is an error
> > > > message we should provide as much information as possible.
> > > 
> > > Well, what other info do we know besides that bit being set?  (I wish we
> > > had more, but I don't think we do)
> > 
> > We should keep printing the reason byte as it did before.
> 
> The reason is printed before because mem_parity_error is treated as
> something like unknown reason. And iochk_error is treated as known
> reason and will not print the reason byte. Please the check the original
> code.
> 
> But now we treat pci_serr_error (renamed from mem_parity_error) as known
> reason. So it is not necessary to print the reason byte. I suggest to
> print the reason byte only if (!(reason & 0xc0) && reason), where the
> reason is really unknown.

So you are just matching the iochk_error.  I understand your reasoning.
Yesterday I thought you changed the unknown_nmi_error code.  I guess I
don't see it as a problem, but I'll let Robert chime in.

Cheers,
Don
--
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/