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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:22:24 -0500
From:	Brijesh Singh <brijeshkumar.singh@....com>
To:	Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>
CC:	<brijeshkumar.singh@....com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....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



On 10/21/2015 05:01 AM, Andre Przywara wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 21/10/15 10:35, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 09:55:43AM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> Well, I guess we can implement all those and have them configurable
>> in the sense that a single driver loads, it has all functionality and
>> dependent on the vendor detection, it does only what the vendor wants
>> like trigger an interrupt or remain silent or ...
> 
> I guess the firmware (running in EL3) will take precedence over this
> driver anyway, so we could just optimistically implement all errors, as
> the driver will just never see errors that are handled in firmware (?)
> In case of a critical error for instance I expect the firmware to never
> return to EL1.
> 
>>
>> Btw, in talking about this with Andre last night, he had the suggestion
>> that this functionality is also in other implementations besides A57 so
>> maybe the driver should be called arm_cortex_edac...
> 
> Yeah, so looking at the A-72 and the A-53 TRM I see those registers to
> be there as well. The A-72 and the A-57 versions look identical to me,
> the A-53 version is only slightly different, but apparently still
> compatible.
> So I'd suggest to let this driver load on detecting all three MIDRs.
> Should later revisions of any of those parts change the register
> meaning, we could add a blacklist or specific MIDR detection.
> 
> But let's just not assume the worst in the first place ;-)
> 
Ok. Will make it generic cortex_arm64_edac. Will check MIDR and call appropriate CPUMERRSR_EL1 and L2MERRSR_EL1. Since I don't have A53 and A72 hence my testing will be limited to Cortex A57.
> Cheers,
> Andre.
> --
> 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/
> 
--
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/