linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH]: mce: don't print "human readable" message for corrected errors

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: <987664A83D2D224EAE907B061CE93D5301A9629BD5@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:02:21 -0700
From:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
CC:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"dzickus@...hat.com" <dzickus@...hat.com>,
	"mstowe@...hat.com" <mstowe@...hat.com>,
	"dnelson@...hat.com" <dnelson@...hat.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH]: mce: don't print "human readable" message for
 corrected errors

> Why not? This way you turn reporting of _ALL_ correctable MCEs
> completely off and some users would actually like to run them through
> mcelog on Intel.

pr_emerg() is rather overkill for a corrected error - on large systems
corrected errors are going to be a routine occurrence (my personal estimation
is "one soft error per gigabyte per month" ... which is pretty much the
same as "one per terabyte per hour" for the people with the really cool
toys.

We are also setting TAINT_MACHINE_CHECK for corrected errors - perhaps
this made sense when systems were small and machine checks were rare and
scary.  But I think we need to start working with the reality that
corrected errors are normal events.

-Tony