linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 8/9] ACPI, APEI, CPER: Cleanup CPER memory error output format

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: <526554D3.9050902@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 21 Oct 2013 21:52:43 +0530
From:	"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	tony.luck@...el.com, bp@...en8.de, joe@...ches.com,
	m.chehab@...sung.com, arozansk@...hat.com,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Chen Gong <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 8/9] ACPI, APEI, CPER: Cleanup CPER memory error output
 format

On 10/19/2013 04:56 PM, Chen Gong wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 05:31:21PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 17:31:21 +0530
>> From: "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> To: "Chen, Gong" <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>, tony.luck@...el.com,
>>   bp@...en8.de, joe@...ches.com, m.chehab@...sung.com
>> CC: arozansk@...hat.com, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
>>   linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 8/9] ACPI, APEI, CPER: Cleanup CPER memory error
>>   output format
>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101
>>   Thunderbird/24.0
>>
> [...]
>>>
>>> @@ -358,17 +349,21 @@ void cper_estatus_print(const char *pfx,
>>>   	struct acpi_generic_data *gdata;
>>>   	unsigned int data_len, gedata_len;
>>>   	int sec_no = 0;
>>> +	char newpfx[64];
>>>   	__u16 severity;
>>>
>>> -	printk("%s""Generic Hardware Error Status\n", pfx);
>>>   	severity = estatus->error_severity;
>>> -	printk("%s""severity: %d, %s\n", pfx, severity,
>>> -	       cper_severity_str(severity));
>>> +	if (severity != CPER_SEV_FATAL)
>>
>> Shouldn't this just be (severity == CPER_SEV_CORRECTED)?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Naveen
>>
> IMO, only fatal error can't be handlered gracefully in current
> kernel plus H/W. Once it can be recovered by H/W and OS, we
> can call it recovered.
>

Sure, but we don't recover in all scenarios. So, calling it corrected 
seems incorrect to me.



- 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/