linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Generic hardware error reporting 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:	Fri, 19 Nov 2010 07:56:38 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Generic hardware error reporting support

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:10 AM, Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
>
> This is used by APEI ERST and GEHS. But it is a generic hardware
> error reporting mechanism and can be used by other hardware error
> reporting mechanisms such as EDAC, PCIe AER, Machine Check, etc.

Yeah, no.

Really.

We don't want some specific hardware error reporting mechanism.
Hardware errors are way less common than other errors, so making
something that is special to them just isn't very interesting.

I seriously suggest that the only _sane_ way to handle hardware errors is to
 (a) admit that they are rare
 (b) not try to use some odd special mechanism for them
 (c) just 'printk' them so that you can use the absolutely most
standard way to report them, and one that administrators are already
used to and has support for network logging with existing tools etc.
 (d) and if you want to make them persistent and NMI-safe, just do
that on the _printk_ level. That way, any NMI-safeness or persistency
helps everybody.

I really see _zero_ point to some hw-error-specific model.

                     Linus
--
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/