linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi

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: <20170815155000.d57hwki5jbixjuj6@pd.tnic>
Date:   Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:50:00 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     "Kani, Toshimitsu" <toshi.kani@....com>
Cc:     "rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        "lenb@...nel.org" <lenb@...nel.org>,
        "mchehab@...nel.org" <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        "tony.luck@...el.com" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 03:35:51PM +0000, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote:
> ghes_edac instantiates an mci as a pseudo device representing a GHES
> error source.  Each error source associates with all DIMMs, and may
> report errors independently.  As ghes_edac is an GHES error-reporting
> wrapper to edac, this abstraction makes sense.

Bullshit.

An MCI is a memory controller descriptor. That doesn't fit the GHES
platform devices that get probed. GHES platform device != MCI. How many
times do I need to say this for it to get through to you?

> I do not see a problem in having counters for each GHES error source.

And the error counters of that "simulated" mci get incremented depending
on which pointer gets passed in from GHES? More bullshit.

> This is just statistics info, and ghes_edac does not expect any OS
> action from the counters.

So let me know if you don't want to do it and rather would prefer to
pointlessly debate. I certainly don't want to waste my time debating.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.