[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1500494666.2042.33.camel@hpe.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 20:13:41 +0000
From: "Kani, Toshimitsu" <toshi.kani@....com>
To: "aris@...hat.com" <aris@...hat.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>
CC: "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>,
"tony.luck@...el.com" <tony.luck@...el.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
On Wed, 2017-07-19 at 14:55 -0400, Aristeu Rozanski wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 06:22:04PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 04:10:07PM +0000, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote:
> > > I do prefer to avoid any white / black listing. But I do not see
> > > how
> > > it solves the buggy DMI/SMBIOS info as an example of firmware
> > > bugs we
> > > may have to deal with.
> >
> > So how do you want to deal with this?
> >
> > Maintain an evergrowing whitelist of platforms which are OK and
> > then the moment a new platform comes along, you send a patch to add
> > it to that whitelist?
>
> That would also need to keep an eye on versions. A newer version of
> BIOS on a whitelisted platform might be broken.
Right. I think a question comes to who broke a running system -- OS
update or BIOS update. This whitelist attempts to protect the former
case by not introducing ghes_edac on arbitrary platforms. The latter
case should be vendor's responsibility.
Thanks,
-Toshi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists