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: <20101026083806.GA14103@basil.fritz.box>
Date:	Tue, 26 Oct 2010 10:38:07 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@...glemail.com>,
	"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>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [NAK] Re: [PATCH -v2 9/9] ACPI, APEI, Generic Hardware Error
 Source POLL/IRQ/NMI notification type support

> So please explain why your error reporting is so different from the
> above that it justifies a separate facility. And you better come up
> with a real good explanation other than we looked at EDAC and it did
> not fit our needs.

Well it didn't fit the needs at all.  Is that not enough, Mr Inquisitor?

Really if you want to nack and maintain and design things you need
to do a bit more than just arguing from two lines of
high level description.

EDAC enumerates hardware and exports some hardware
registers and decodes a few errors in a format into
the kernel log that is hard to impossible to post-process.

APEI does nothing of that, so it doesn't fit into EDAC.

perf does small parts of it, but a lot of things that are needed
it doesn't do either. And for the things it does it's incredible 
overkill in terms of code size, overhead etc. for the task
at hand.

Basically the only facility in perf that could 
be reused is a simple message passing layer, which 
is only a few tens lines of code anyways, but only
at the cost of doing a lot of changes to get the right
semantics out of it.

The main interface in APEI right now is to manage fatal
errors after reboot. Short of making it a file system,
which didn't really fit either, there's no existing interface
that handles that in a half way sensible way.

There's some other stuff but it's reasonably small too.

-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/