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: <20170721124401.5f94aba9@vento.lan>
Date:   Fri, 21 Jul 2017 12:44:01 -0300
From:   Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>
To:     "Kani, Toshimitsu" <toshi.kani@....com>
Cc:     "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "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

Em Fri, 21 Jul 2017 15:34:50 +0000
"Kani, Toshimitsu" <toshi.kani@....com> escreveu:

> On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 17:13 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 03:08:41PM +0000, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote:  
> > > Yes, that is correct.  Corrected errors are reported to the OS when
> > > they exceeded the platform's threshold.  
> > 
> > Are those thresholds user-configurable?  
> 
> I suppose it'd depend on vendors, but I do not think users can do it
> properly unless they have depth knowledge about the hardware.
> 
> > If not, what are you telling users who want to see *every* corrected
> > error for measuring DIMM wear and so on...?  
> 
> Corrected errors are normal and expected to occur on healthy hardware. 
> They do not need user's attention until they repeatedly occurred at a
> same place.

Yes, they're expected to happen. Still, some sys admins have their own
measurements about what's "normal" for their scenario, and want
to monitor every single corrected error, running their own
algorithm to warn if the number of corrected errors is above their
"normal" rate.

Thanks,
Mauro