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: <4DFAB081.6050800@intel.com>
Date:	Fri, 17 Jun 2011 09:40:17 +0800
From:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
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: [PATCH] ACPI, APEI, Add APEI _OSC support

On 06/17/2011 09:34 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 08:57:09AM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
>> On 06/16/2011 09:57 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> Yeah, this is going to be a problem. We have the HEST available at this 
>>> point so we ought to be able to parse it, though. I'll take a look 
>>> tomorrow.
>>
>> We can check the HEST table before _OSC evaluating.  But it is much
>> harder to check software part, because we have implemented GHES support
>> (Generic Hardware Error Source, the handler of firmware first mode
>> hardware error notification) as device driver and module.
> 
> If the kernel has been configured with support for the feature then I 
> think we ought to be able to assume that the kernel will support it at 
> runtime.

There may be error during driver initialization.  That is what I am
concerned.

>> So I think we can do that in 2 steps.  At first, we just enable WHEA
>> UUID, because that is easier to do.  Then we find a way to implement
>> "APEI bit" in generic _OSC call.  Do you think that is a good idea?
> 
> I'm fine with that, providing that GHES isn't disabled purely because 
> the WHEA UUID call wasn't successful.

Because we have not added the code to make generic _OSC call with "APEI
bit" now, so if WHEA UUID call failed, we have no firmware first mode
enabled.  So I think it is safe to disable GHES if WHEA UUID call
failed.  But in another hand, keeping GHES has no harm too.  So I am OK
to keep GHES if WHEA UUID call failed.

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/