linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH EDAC 07/13] edac: add support for raw error reports

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: <20130215134929.3909cfa2@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:49:29 -0200
From:	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Linux Edac Mailing List <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH EDAC 07/13] edac: add support for raw error reports

Em Fri, 15 Feb 2013 16:41:23 +0100
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> escreveu:

> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 01:25:30PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Well, for sure using an structure will help to avoid missing a
> > parameter or exchanging its order. The stack usage won't reduce,
> > though, because the structure will keep using the stack.
> 
> If you allocate it on the stack of the caller, yes. If you kmalloc it,
> no.

Sure, but calling kmalloc while handling a memory error doesn't seem
a very good idea, IMHO. So, better to either use an already allocated
space (or the stack).
> 
> In any case, passing a pointer to struct edac_raw_error_desc only will
> allow on x86_64 (and i386 AFAICT) to use only registers to pass callee
> function arguments. Which is always a win. You probably need to stare at
> compiler output to see what gcc actually does with -O2 optimizations.

Yes, I know, but, on the other hand, there's the additional cost of
copying almost all data into the structure.

> > As I can't foresee the usage of this function call outside the core
> > and by the GHES driver, I'm not sure what would be the better.
> 
> Having an error descriptor is always better, even if it were only for
> clarity's and simplicity's sake.

Yes, the code is now clearer.

Ok, I'll keep this patch on my git. I'll likely fold it with the previous 
one on the final patchset.

-- 

Cheers,
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/