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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 17:21:39 +1000 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> Cc: James Morse <james.morse@....com>, "Hawa, Hanna" <hhhawa@...zon.com>, "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>, "Woodhouse, David" <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>, "paulmck@...ux.ibm.com" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>, "mchehab@...nel.org" <mchehab@...nel.org>, "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>, "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>, "nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com" <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>, "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, "Shenhar, Talel" <talel@...zon.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Chocron, Jonathan" <jonnyc@...zon.com>, "Krupnik, Ronen" <ronenk@...zon.com>, "linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>, "Hanoch, Uri" <hanochu@...zon.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] edac: add support for Amazon's Annapurna Labs EDAC On Tue, 2019-06-11 at 15:50 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Sat, 2019-06-08 at 11:05 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 10:16:11AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > Those IP blocks don't need any SW coordination at runtime. The drivers > > > don't share data nor communicate with each other. There is absolultely > > > no reason to go down that path. > > > > Let me set one thing straight: the EDAC "subsystem" if you will - or > > that pile of code which does error counting and reporting - has its > > limitations in supporting one EDAC driver per platform. And whenever we > > have two drivers loadable on a platform, we have to do dirty hacks like > > > > 301375e76432 ("EDAC: Add owner check to the x86 platform drivers") > > > > What that means is, that if you need to call EDAC logging routines or > > whatnot from two different drivers, there's no locking, no nothing. So > > it might work or it might set your cat on fire. > > Should we fix that then instead ? What are the big issues with adding > some basic locking ? being called from NMIs ? > > If the separate drivers operate on distinct counters I don't see a big > problem there. So looking again ... all the registration/removal of edac devices seem to already be protected by mutexes, so that's not a problem. Tell me more about what specific races you think we might have here, I'm not sure I follow... Cheers, Ben.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists