linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/8] ACPI, x86: Extended error log driver for x86 platform

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: <20131014102635.GC4009@pd.tnic>
Date:	Mon, 14 Oct 2013 12:26:35 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Chen Gong <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	tony.luck@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] ACPI, x86: Extended error log driver for x86 platform

On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:16:33PM -0400, Chen Gong wrote:
> But this driver can be loaded as a module. If this module is unloaded,
> extlog_print is gone. I can't keep such a pointer internally.

Sure you can - you define a weak extlog_print() function in a
compilation unit which is always builtin. Maybe mce.c or so.

> This macro is great and I'd loved to use it. But it looks like a
> litttle bit weird to let eMCA depends on a header file like edac.h.
> Meanwhile, I found in drivers/video/sis/init.c:3323 we have a very
> similar macro for this purpose. So how about writing a separate patch
> to clean it up first?

Actually, you're right. Those macros are much more generic and
could be exposed to the general public by putting them, say into
include/include/bitops.h, for example?

Btw, the sis one generates unsigneds (4 byte on x86) while the edac one
8 byte ULLs. So you could call them

GENMASK
and
GENMASK_ULL

How does that sound?

> Because I think in theory "CPU < 0" is impossible. When it hits such
> situation, it should be a very serious H/W or firmware bug. At least,
> It think it should be a WARN_ON.

Yes, I think a WARN_ON is much better than the heavy hammer. We can
always turn it into a FW_BUG later if it really starts to trigger
anywhere...

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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/