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:	Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:52:43 +0800
From:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.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>,
	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [NAK] Re: [PATCH -v2 9/9] ACPI, APEI, Generic Hardware Error
 Source POLL/IRQ/NMI notification type support

Hi, Thomas,

On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 12:53 +0800, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> B1;2401;0cLen,
> 
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Len Brown wrote:
> 
> > >  NAKed-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> > 
> > Everybody knows that Linux has a lot to learn about RAS.
> > 
> > I think to catch up, we need to play to Linux's strengths
> > of continuous improvement.  If we halt patches in this area
> > then we could wait forever for the "perfect design".
> 
> it's not about perfect design. It's about creating new user space
> ABIs. The patches introduce another error reporting user space ABI
> with an ad hoc "fits the needs" design.
> 
> This is my major point of objection. 
> 
> I agree that Linux needs improvement on the RAS side, but does this
> lack of features justify a new user space ABI which is totally
> disconnected to existing RAS facilities ?
> 
> No, it does not. It's not our problem that Intel wasted time on
> creating another character device driver to report errors to user
> space. The time spent to do so would have been sufficient to do a
> proper integration into the existing infrastructure.
> 
> I would not care at all if these patches would just introduce some
> weird in kernel interfaces as we can clean that up at will. But
> introducing a new user space ABI is setting the disconnect of RAS
> related facilities into stone.
> 
> From Kconfig:
> 
>   EDAC is designed to report errors in the core system.
>   These are low-level errors that are reported in the CPU or
>   supporting chipset or other subsystems:
>   memory errors, cache errors, PCI errors, thermal throttling, etc..
>   If unsure, select 'Y'.
> 
> 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.

As far as I know, EDAC guys plan to use some other "perfect interface"
in the future. So I think the current state is really waiting for the
"perfect design".

Best Regards,
Huang Ying


--
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/