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]

Date:	Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:11:27 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	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

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 02:55:31PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 01:15:30PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > > > > > einj.c: it's about the 3rd separate 'error injection' concept that got 
> > > > > > introduced ...
> > > > > 
> > > > > EINJ is a true platform feature, not just software feature. We need to support 
> > > > > it to debug various hardware error features.
> > > > 
> > > > Also having multiple error injecting interfaces is a good thing.
> > > 
> > > It's never a good thing to have separate, vendor dependent interfaces for what 
> > > to the user is basically the same conceptual thing!
> > 
> > Perhaps a simple example (simplified, in practice there are more complications) 
> > makes it more clear:
> > 
> > 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.

Different events in different contexts with different drivers 
with different parameters using different tools.

Commonality: about 0% exept there's "error" somewhere in the description.

-Andi
--
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/