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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 30 Aug 2018 12:28:15 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <>
To:     James Morse <>
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

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:20:48AM +0100, James Morse wrote:
> 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.

It all sounds nice on paper but you should try it on a couple of
machines first. See whether/how it actually works there.

Also, this probably would need to not change x86 unless you wanna fix it
there too. I'd think twice before I attempt such a thing though :)

> (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)

See above.

> > In an ideal world, I'd like to be able to query the SPD chips on the
> (oh, that can be done?)

There was some talk initially and I've seen BIOS read SPD chips and
showing DIMM info but I've heard the word "proprietary" a couple of
times. Haven't dug any deeper though.

> 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.

It is always better to have certification on your side. Should make ARM
vendors dance.

> 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.



ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists