linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] EDAC: Add AMD Seattle SoC EDAC

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: <5626F09F.4050107@huawei.com>
Date:	Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:55:43 +0800
From:	Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
CC:	Brijesh Singh <brijeshkumar.singh@....com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	<pawel.moll@....com>, <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	<galak@...eaurora.org>, <dougthompson@...ssion.com>,
	<mchehab@....samsung.com>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Huxinwei <huxinwei@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] EDAC: Add AMD Seattle SoC EDAC

Hi Boris, Mark,

On 2015/10/21 1:36, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 06:26:55PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> Btw, how much of this is implementing generic A57 functionality?
>> The driver is entirely A57 generic.
>>
>>> If a lot, can we make this a generic a57_edac driver so that multiple
>>> vendors can use it?
>> Yes.
> Ok, cool.
>
>>> How fast and how ugly can something like that become?
>> Not sure I follow.
> In the sense that some vendor might require just a little bit different
> handling or maybe wants to read some vendor-specific registers in
> addition to the architectural ones.

Yes, you are right and foresight :)

>
> Then we'll start adding vendor-specific hacks to that generic driver.
> And therefore the question how fast and how ugly such hacks would
> become.
>
> I guess we'll worry about that when we get there...

So I think the meaning of those error register is the same, but the way
of handle it may different from SoCs, for single bit error:

 - SoC may trigger a interrupt;
 - SoC may just keep silent so we need to scan the registers using poll
   mechanism.

For Double bit error:
  - SoC may also keep silent
  - Trigger a interrupt
  - Trigger a SEI (system error)

Any suggestion to cover those cases?

Thanks
Hanjun

--
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/