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  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:   Wed, 29 Aug 2018 11:20:48 +0100
From:   James Morse <>
To:     Borislav Petkov <>
Cc:     Tyler Baicar <>,
        Tyler Baicar <>,,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,,,
        arm-mail-list <>,
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] EDAC, ghes: Enable per-layer error reporting for ARM

Hi Boris,

On 29/08/18 08:38, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 06:09:24PM +0100, James Morse wrote:
>> Does x86 have another source of memory-topology information it needs to
>> correlate smbios with?
> Bah, pinpointing the DIMM on x86 is a mess. There's no reliable way to
> say which DIMM it is in certain cases (interleaving, mirrorring, ...)
> and it is all platform-dependent. So we do the layers to dump a memory
> location (node, memory controller, ....) so that we can at least limit
> the number of DIMMs the user needs to replace/try.

Right. I'd like ghes-edac to work in the same way for both architectures.

I think this is best done by stuffing the dmi-handle in struct dimm_info during
ghes_edac_dmidecode(), then populating the struct edac_raw_error_desc layers
from the matching mci->dimms 'location'.

For EDAC_MC_LAYER_ALL_MEM this boils down to a flat index, so pointer arithmetic
on mci->dimms is an appropriate short cut.

(We should probably 'FIXME: It shouldn't be hard to also fill the DIMM labels'
at the same time so that no-one is tempted to interpret the edac:dimm-idx)

> In an ideal world, I'd like to be able to query the SPD chips on the

(oh, that can be done?)

> DIMMs and build the topology and then when an error happens to say,
> "error in DIMM <silkscreen>" where silkscreen is what is written on the
> motherboard under the DIMM socket.
> But I don't see that happening any time soon...

>> For arm there is nothing else describing the memory-topology, so as long as we
>> can correlate the smbios table and ghes:cper records through the handles, we can
>> get this working for all systems.
> And then make sure vendors fill in the proper info in smbios. Because that's
> also a mess on x86.

I got educated by the people who look after specifications last time I touched
this [0]. SMBIOS tables are required by Arm's 'Server Base Boot Requirements',
It lists the memory-device and physical-memory-array as required.

I will drop them a note that we will be depending on the handle, and it should
go on the list too... if its not populated on today's systems we can fall back
to !e->enable_per_layer_report as we do today.




Powered by blists - more mailing lists