linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ACPI / IPMI: change warning to debug on timeout

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]

Date:   Wed, 29 Mar 2017 00:06:45 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>
Cc:     Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Zheng, Lv" <lv.zheng@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI / IPMI: change warning to debug on timeout

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Corey Minyard <minyard@....org> wrote:
> On 03/25/2017 09:08 AM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>>
>> On 3/24/2017 10:55 PM, Corey Minyard wrote:
>>>
>>> Why would a timeout for a message be expected?  The BMC should
>>> at least respond with an error for an incorrect message.
>>
>> Let me add some more context...
>>
>> In this particular case, the FRU ID that I was trying to access was
>> correct.
>>
>> Platform supports PCIe hotplug. The FRU is embedded into the HW that
>> is being removed. That's what I mean by non-existent.
>>
>> When the device is ejected and a FRU command is executed, BMC times out
>> reaching to the FRU on the device.
>>
>> When the device is inserted, everything works as expected.
>
>
> I haven't added this yet.  Someone who knows more about the ACPI side of
> IPMI
> should probably comment.  So I've added Lv Zheng.
>
> This is ok with me, though.  If you remove a management controller, a
> timeout is
> expected.  However, if the management controller is still present, a timeout
> is
> probably not the best error code, "destination unavailable" is probably a
> better
> choice.
>
> So:
>
> Acked-by: Corey Minyard <cminyard@...sta.com>
>
> -corey

FWIW, this change is fine by me, so please feel free to route this
through the IPMI tree along with the other patch from Sinan.

Thanks,
Rafael