linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 3/7] acpi: apei: remove the unused code

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: <59BA778E.5000804@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Sep 2017 13:35:26 +0100
From:   James Morse <james.morse@....com>
To:     gengdongjiu <gengdongjiu@...wei.com>
CC:     christoffer.dall@...aro.org, marc.zyngier@....com,
        rkrcmar@...hat.com, linux@...linux.org.uk, catalin.marinas@....com,
        will.deacon@....com, lenb@...nel.org, robert.moore@...el.com,
        lv.zheng@...el.com, mark.rutland@....com, xiexiuqi@...wei.com,
        cov@...eaurora.org, david.daney@...ium.com, suzuki.poulose@....com,
        stefan@...lo-penguin.com, Dave.Martin@....com,
        kristina.martsenko@....com, wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com,
        tbaicar@...eaurora.org, ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org,
        mingo@...nel.org, bp@...e.de, shiju.jose@...wei.com,
        zjzhang@...eaurora.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        devel@...ica.org, mst@...hat.com, john.garry@...wei.com,
        jonathan.cameron@...wei.com, shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com,
        huangdaode@...ilicon.com, wangzhou1@...ilicon.com,
        huangshaoyu@...wei.com, wuquanming@...wei.com, linuxarm@...wei.com,
        zhengqiang10@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/7] acpi: apei: remove the unused code

Hi gengdongjiu,

On 11/09/17 13:04, gengdongjiu wrote:
> On 2017/9/9 2:17, James Morse wrote:
>> On 04/09/17 12:43, gengdongjiu wrote:
>>> On 2017/9/1 1:50, James Morse wrote:
>>>> On 28/08/17 11:38, Dongjiu Geng wrote:
>>>> If you aren't handling the notification, why is this is in the HEST at all?
>>>> (and if its not: its not firmware-first)
>>
>>> For the SEI notification, may be we can parse and handle the CPER record other than the Error physical address
>>
>> Sure, but I only see this cleanup patch in this series, where does APEI learn
>> about NOTIFY_SEI? As this is nothing will ever touch those CPER records, if
>> you're using GHESv2 firmware will be prevented from delivering subsequent
>> notifications.

> James, whether it is possible you can review the previous v5 patch which adds the support for

Spreading 'current discussion' over two versions is a problem for anyone trying
to follow this series.

If you post a newer version its normal for people to delete the older versions.
When you post a new version you should be happy that its the latest and greatest.


> NOTIFY_SEI? thanks in advancecIn that patch, I share the SEI notification
handling with the SEA
> notification handling to avoid duplicated code.

You may be able to share some of the code, but I don't think you should share
the list of GHES between notification methods.
This leads to races between the firmware and OS: If CPU-A has received an SEI
firmware would have to avoid generating an SEA on CPU-B as the SEI-handler
running on CPU-A may find and process the second set of CPER records. CPU-B then
gets a spurious notification.

Why is this a problem? KVM needs to know if APEI handled the error, or whether
the Synchronous-External-Abort/SError-Interrupt was due to something else, in
which case we invoke todays default behaviour, which isn't appropriate for a RAS
event.


Thanks,

James