linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH EDACv16 1/2] edac: Change internal representation to work with layers

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, 30 Apr 2012 08:45:09 -0300
From:	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
CC:	Linux Edac Mailing List <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Aristeu Rozanski <arozansk@...hat.com>,
	Doug Thompson <norsk5@...oo.com>,
	Mark Gross <mark.gross@...el.com>,
	Jason Uhlenkott <juhlenko@...mai.com>,
	Tim Small <tim@...tersideup.com>,
	Ranganathan Desikan <ravi@...ztechnologies.com>,
	"Arvind R." <arvino55@...il.com>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Egor Martovetsky <egor@...emi.com>,
	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@...il.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Hitoshi Mitake <h.mitake@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Niklas Söderlund 
	<niklas.soderlund@...csson.com>,
	Shaohui Xie <Shaohui.Xie@...escale.com>,
	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...il.com>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH EDACv16 1/2] edac: Change internal representation to work
 with layers

Em 30-04-2012 08:11, Borislav Petkov escreveu:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 07:58:33AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:

>> For example, this is the mapping used by the second memory controller of the SB machine
>> I'm using on my tests:
>>
>> [52803.640043] EDAC DEBUG: sbridge_probe: Registering MC#1 (2 of 2)
>> ...
>> [52803.640062] EDAC DEBUG: edac_mc_alloc: edac_mc_alloc(): allocating 7196 bytes for mci data (12 dimms, 12 csrows/channels)
>> [52803.640070] EDAC DEBUG: edac_mc_alloc: edac_mc_alloc: initializing 12 dimms
>> [52803.640072] EDAC DEBUG: edac_mc_alloc: edac_mc_alloc: 0: dimm0 (0:0:0): row 0, chan 0
>> [52803.640074] EDAC DEBUG: edac_mc_alloc: edac_mc_alloc: 1: dimm1 (0:1:0): row 0, chan 1
>> [52803.640077] EDAC DEBUG: edac_mc_alloc: edac_mc_alloc: 2: dimm2 (0:2:0): row 0, chan 2
>> [52803.640080] EDAC DEBUG: edac_mc_alloc: edac_mc_alloc: 3: dimm3 (1:0:0): row 0, chan 3
>> [52803.640083] EDAC DEBUG: edac_mc_alloc: edac_mc_alloc: 4: dimm4 (1:1:0): row 1, chan 0
>> [52803.640086] EDAC DEBUG: edac_mc_alloc: edac_mc_alloc: 5: dimm5 (1:2:0): row 1, chan 1
>> [52803.640089] EDAC DEBUG: edac_mc_alloc: edac_mc_alloc: 6: dimm6 (2:0:0): row 1, chan 2
>> [52803.640092] EDAC DEBUG: edac_mc_alloc: edac_mc_alloc: 7: dimm7 (2:1:0): row 1, chan 3
>> [52803.640095] EDAC DEBUG: edac_mc_alloc: edac_mc_alloc: 8: dimm8 (2:2:0): row 2, chan 0
>> [52803.640098] EDAC DEBUG: edac_mc_alloc: edac_mc_alloc: 9: dimm9 (3:0:0): row 2, chan 1
>> [52803.640101] EDAC DEBUG: edac_mc_alloc: edac_mc_alloc: 10: dimm10 (3:1:0): row 2, chan 2
>> [52803.640104] EDAC DEBUG: edac_mc_alloc: edac_mc_alloc: 11: dimm11 (3:2:0): row 2, chan 3
>>
>> With the above info, it is clear that the DIMM located at mc#1, channel#3 slot#2 is
>> called "dimm11" at the new API, and corresponds to "csrow 2, channel 3" for a legacy
>> EDAC API call.
> 
> Are all those DIMM slots above populated? What happens if they're not,
> are you issuing the same dimm0-dimm11 lines for slots which aren't even
> populated?
> 
> I have a much better idea: Generally, this debug info should come from
> the specific driver that allocates the dimm descriptors, not from the
> EDAC core. This way, you know in the driver which slots are populated
> and those which are not should be omitted.

The drivers don't allocate the dimm descriptors. They're allocated by the
core.

> This way it says "initializing 12 dimms" and the user thinks there are
> 12 DIMMs on his system where this might not be true.


I'm OK to remove the "initializing 12 dimms" message. It doesn't add anything
new.

With regards do the other messages, if the debug messages are not clear, 
then let's fix them, instead of removing. What if we print, instead,
on a message like:

	"row 1, chan 1 will represent dimm5 (1:2:0) if not empty"

Regards,
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/