linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] EDAC: Convert AMD EDAC pieces to use RAS printk buffer

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:	Mon, 05 Mar 2012 10:35:47 -0300
From:	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
CC:	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	EDAC devel <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] EDAC: Convert AMD EDAC pieces to use RAS printk buffer

Em 05-03-2012 09:44, Borislav Petkov escreveu:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 08:43:59AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>> It is still adding an amd64-specific code inside the core, as no other driver will
>> use the amd64 "ras_agent".
> 
> Whoopie, we have another example that you're not really reading
> my emails: ras_agent is _NOT_ amd64-specific but it is defined in
> <arch/x86/ras/ras.c>

No. This is an example that you're not reading my emails: no other driver needs that.
So, it is something that it is specific to the MCA amd64 drivers.

The other two MCA drivers are sb_edac and i7core_edac. I wrote both drivers, and they
don't need any helper function to store strings on a temporary buffer.

Also, the edac core is not x86-specific. So, referencing to a var there (ras_agent) 
that it is defined inside arch/x86 would break Kernel compilation on all other 
architectures.

> [..]
> 
>> If nobody objects, I'll add my changes to linux-next, as it was tested
>> on most systems. I'll remove the MCE-specific tracepoint from my code,
>> keeping the trace there for the other stuff.
> 
> As already pointed out, I object to the tracepoints you've defined for every
> single edac_mc_handle_* call:
> 
> TRACE_EVENT(mc_corrected_error,
> TRACE_EVENT(mc_uncorrected_error,
> TRACE_EVENT(mc_corrected_error_fbd,
> TRACE_EVENT(mc_uncorrected_error_fbd,
> TRACE_EVENT(mc_out_of_range,
> TRACE_EVENT(mc_corrected_error_no_info,
> TRACE_EVENT(mc_uncorrected_error_no_info,

As already pointed out, you're not reading my emails. The above were at the version 1 of
my patches, with I sent at least a month ago. Since version 2, what is proposed is to use:

TRACE_EVENT(mc_error_mce,

for MCA-based memory error events. There's also a variant for non-MCA drivers (mc_error). 

[1] http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/mchehab/linux-edac.git;a=commitdiff;h=4eb2a29419c1fefd76c8dbcd308b84a4b52faf4d

I also wrote on my emails that, instead of having a tracepoint specific for memory errors,
it is possible to re-define the fields I've proposed to cover CPU location/socket label,
and that this is better than folding everything into a hard-to-parse single string message.

> The edac drivers which get their error info from MCA should use
> trace_mce_record() and the others should either use a _single_ generic
> tracepoint or define one which adheres to the underlying hardware
> reporting scheme (be it PCI-AER, or whatever).
> 

Mauro.
--
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/