linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ACPI, APEI, Add APEI

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: <4DF700AF.3090702@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:33:19 +0800
From:	Chen Gong <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
CC:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI, APEI, Add APEI _OSC support

于 6/13/2011 10:50 PM, Don Zickus 写道:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 02:05:38PM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
>> In APEI firmware first mode, hardware error is reported by hardware to
>> firmware firstly, then firmware reports the error to Linux in a GHES
>> error record via POLL/SCI/IRQ/NMI etc.
>>
>> This may result in some issues if OS has no full APEI support.  So
>> some firmware implementation will work in a back-compatible mode by
>> default.  Where firmware will only notify OS in old-fashion, without
>> GHES record.  For example, for a fatal hardware error, only NMI is
>> signaled, no GHES record.
>>
>> To gain full APEI power on these machines, a special APEI _OSC needs
>> to be evaluated to tell firmware that Linux has full APEI support.
>> This patch add the APEI _OSC support.
>
> Using an Intel box I have over at RedHat, I was able to use this patch to
> get error injection (EINJ) to provide me a GHES record.  Prior to this
> patch I would just get unknown NMIs.
>
> Talking with Matthew Garret, I guess it seems that uuids like this are
> typical for ACPI.
>
> I can't speak for all the ACPI parts, but the patch looks simple and
> corret from my perspective.
>
Interesting, but I can't reproduce it on our machines by now. Would you
please share your test information such as machine type, BIOS
version, and test method (such as what type error you inject) ?
--
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/