linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] 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]

Date:	Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:22:56 +0100
From:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc:	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 4/4] ACPI, APEI, Add APEI _OSC support

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 03:16:27PM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:

> +	rc = apei_osc_setup();
> +	if (rc)
> +		pr_info(GHES_PFX "Evaluate APEI _OSC failed!\n");

Hm. This is maybe a little strong. It'd be valid for a machine to return 
an error here but still have the GHES functionality enabled via the 
generic call, but this message would still show up and potentially 
confuse the user. Can we keep a flag to check whether the generic method 
gave us control, and only give the error if both fail to enable it?

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
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/