linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 3/7] acpi: apei: Add SEI notification type support for ARMv8

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]

Date:   Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:07:52 +0800
From:   gengdongjiu <gengdongjiu@...wei.com>
To:     James Morse <james.morse@....com>
CC:     <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>, <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        <linux@...linux.org.uk>, <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        <rjw@...ysocki.net>, <bp@...en8.de>, <robert.moore@...el.com>,
        <lv.zheng@...el.com>, <corbet@....net>, <will.deacon@....com>,
        <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu>, <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devel@...ica.org>, <huangshaoyu@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/7] acpi: apei: Add SEI notification type support for
 ARMv8

sorry fix a typo.

On 2018/1/23 17:23, gengdongjiu wrote:
>> There are problems with doing this:
>>
>> Oct. 18, 2017, 10:26 a.m. James Morse wrote:
>> | How do SEA and SEI interact?
>> |
>> | As far as I can see they can both interrupt each other, which isn't something
>> | the single in_nmi() path in APEI can handle. I thinks we should fix this
>> | first.
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> | SEA gets away with a lot of things because its synchronous. SEI isn't. Xie
>> | XiuQi pointed to the memory_failure_queue() code. We can use this directly
>> | from SEA, but not SEI. (what happens if an SError arrives while we are
>> | queueing memory_failure work from an IRQ).
>> |
>> | The one that scares me is the trace-point reporting stuff. What happens if an
>> | SError arrives while we are enabling a trace point? (these are static-keys
>> | right?)
>> |
>> |  I don't think we can just plumb SEI in like this and be done with it.
>> |  (I'm looking at teasing out the estatus cache code from being x86:NMI only.
>> |  This way we solve the same 'cant do this from NMI context' with the same
>> |  code'.)
>>
>>
>> I will post what I've got for this estatus-cache thing as an RFC, its not ready
>> to be considered yet.

Yes, I know you are dong that. Your serial's patch will consider all above things, right?
If your patch can be consider that, this patch can based on your patchset. thanks.

> 
>>