linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] ACPI, APEI, Generic Hardware Error Source (GHES) injecting 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, 17 May 2011 14:41:53 +0800
From:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
CC:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] ACPI, APEI, Generic Hardware Error Source (GHES) injecting
 support

On 05/17/2011 03:33 AM, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:08:41AM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
>> The testing of Generic Hardware Error Source (GHES) is quite
>> difficult, because special hardware is needed to trigger the hardware
>> error. So a software based hardware error injector for GHES is
>> implemented.
>>
>> Error notification is not provided in this patch.  So you still need
>> some NMI/SCI/IRQ injecting support to make it work.
> 
> Should we add that to this patch, otherwise it seems like the injection
> isn't very useful or intuitive from the end-user perspective that they
> have to provide their own notification source (ie NMI/SCI/MCE/IRQ).

We can provide the NMI/SCI/IRQ injecting in another patch.  What do you
think about the NMI injecting patch attached?

BTW: MCE will not be processed by GHES.

Best Regards,
Huang Ying

View attachment "nmi_inject.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (6930 bytes)