linux-kernel - Re: [NAK] Re: [PATCH -v2 9/9] ACPI, APEI, Generic Hardware Error Source POLL/IRQ/NMI notification type support

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: <20101025130223.GA7012@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:02:23 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@...glemail.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [NAK] Re: [PATCH -v2 9/9] ACPI, APEI, Generic Hardware Error
 Source POLL/IRQ/NMI notification type support


* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:

> > The memory error handler does different actions depending on what the state the 
> > page the error is happening on is in.
> 
> What you appear to be arguing for is the ability to inject different types of 
> events.
> 
> _OF COURSE_ we want that.
> 
> Just like we want to be able to _receive_ multiple types of events from wildly 
> different hardware and wildly different kernel subsystems ...
> 
> Duh.
> 
> That desire does not necessiate 'three different injectors' at all. It does not 
> necessiate multiple incompatible facilities with random ABIs.

And note that once there's a generic facility that allows event injection, the 
actual low level implementation might of course be hardware specific. There's no 
reduction in actual feature richness: if the hw can do fancy things, it can be 
expressed via a generic facility as well.

What i object to is the narrow hardware specificity (and ad-hocness) of the high 
level interface and its non-integration into existing facilities.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/