linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 3/3] ghes_edac: add platform check to enable ghes

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: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F6130D7B8@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Jul 2017 18:06:25 +0000
From:   "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>,
        "Kani, Toshimitsu" <toshi.kani@....com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mchehab@...nel.org" <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        "rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        "srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com" 
        <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
        "lenb@...nel.org" <lenb@...nel.org>,
        "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 3/3] ghes_edac: add platform check to enable ghes_edac

>> Later when GHES gives you a NODE/CARD/MODULE) in an error record.  You need
>> to match these up. But SMBIOS only gave you two strings "Locator" and "Bank
>> Locator" which have no defined syntax. You are at the mercy of the BIOS writer
>> to put in something parseable.
>
> Well, at some point it is only so much we can do, right?
>
> I mean, if FW says it wants to do firmware-first and we go and adhere
> to that, it should be expected that said FW vendor marks the silkscreen
> labels and DMI data accordingly.
>
> I mean, it is time for FW to put its money where its mouth is, no?
>
> How else would you do this?

By thinking a bit more and realizing that what I wrote up above misses that
at byte offset 78 in the UEFI memory error section there is "Module Handle"
which tells you which SMBIOS entry to use.

So this should work just fine (as long as BIOS fills out all these fields ...
there's a "Validation Bits" mask at the start of the error structure that says
which fields have been populated).

-Tony