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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:17:26 +0530 From: "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com> CC: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <m.chehab@...sung.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, "rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>, "rjw@...k.pl" <rjw@...k.pl>, "lance.ortiz@...com" <lance.ortiz@...com>, "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Aristeu Rozanski Filho <arozansk@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mce: acpi/apei: trace: Enable ghes memory error trace event On 08/13/2013 11:09 PM, Luck, Tony wrote: >> In the meantime, like Boris suggests, I think we can have a different >> trace event for raw APEI reports - userspace can use it as it pleases. >> >> Once ghes_edac gets better, users can decide whether they want raw APEI >> reports or the EDAC-processed version and choose one or the other trace >> event. > > It's cheap to add as many tracepoints as we like - but may be costly to maintain. > Especially if we have to tinker with them later to adjust which things are logged, > that puts a burden on user-space tools to be updated to adapt to the changing > API. Agree. And this is the reason I have been considering mc_event. But, the below issues with ghes_edac made me unsure: - One, the logging format for APEI data is a bit verbose and hard to parse. But, I suppose we could work with this if we make a few changes. Is it ok to change how the APEI data is made available through mc_event->driver_detail? - Two, if ghes_edac is enabled, it prevents other edac drivers from being loaded. It looks like the assumption here is that if ghes/firmware first is enabled, then *all* memory errors are reported through ghes which is not true. We could have (a subset of) corrected errors reported through ghes, some through CMCI and uncorrected errors through MCE. So, if I'm not mistaken, if ghes_edac is enabled, we will only receive ghes error events through mc_event and not the others. Mauro, is this accurate? > > Mauro has written his user-space tool to process the ghes-edac events: > git://git.fedorahosted.org/rasdaemon.git > > Who is writing the user space tools to process the new apei tracepoints > you want to add? Enabling rasdaemon itself for the new tracepoint is an option, as long as Mauro doesn't object to it ;) > > I'm not opposed to these patches - just wondering who is taking the next step > to make them useful. Sure. Regards, Naveen -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists