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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1502813405.2042.153.camel@hpe.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Aug 2017 16:19:50 +0000
From:   "Kani, Toshimitsu" <toshi.kani@....com>
To:     "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>
CC:     "linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
        "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>,
        "rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Tue, 2017-08-15 at 17:50 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> 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?

Right, but it has to be a "pseudo" device for ghes_edac.  There is no
memory controller info available.  A single mci does not make it a real
memory controller, either.

> > 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.

Yes, ghes_edac refactoring like this should be considered a separate
item.  My patchset is aimed to introduce a platform-check to attach
ghes_edac on supported platforms.

Thanks,
-Toshi