linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] acpi: apei: Rename ghes_severity() to ghes_cper

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, 22 May 2018 09:39:15 -0500
From:   "Alex G." <mr.nuke.me@...il.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, alex_gagniuc@...lteam.com,
        austin_bolen@...l.com, shyam_iyer@...l.com,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Tyler Baicar <tbaicar@...eaurora.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@...wei.com>,
        "Jonathan (Zhixiong) Zhang" <zjzhang@...eaurora.org>,
        Dongjiu Geng <gengdongjiu@...wei.com>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] acpi: apei: Rename ghes_severity() to
 ghes_cper_severity()



On 05/22/2018 08:50 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 08:38:39AM -0500, Alex G. wrote:
>>> It looks like the *real* reason for this change is that you
>>> re-introduce ghes_severity() as a different function in the second
>>> patch.
>>
>> /me holds fist at Borislav
> 
> That was a misunderstanding with Rafael and me - we fixed it on IRC.

You mean to say this whole time I've been struggling to write emails,
there was an IRC?

> But this is not the real problem with your approach - it is the marking
> of all PCIe errors as recoverable, regardless of the signature. That's a
> no-no, IMO.

No, the problem is with the current approach, not with mine. The problem
is trying to handle the error outside of the existing handler. That's a
no-no, IMO.

Alex