linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] edac: add support for Amazon's Annapurna Labs EDAC

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]

Message-ID: <7705227ea831793cc9e45af32e0da8f5547cb14d.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jun 2019 21:57:40 +1000
From:   Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        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>,
        "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 Wed, 2019-06-12 at 08:42 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Yes, we do have different error reporting facilities but I still
> > think
> > that concentrating all the error information needed in order to do
> > proper recovery action is the better approach here. And make that
> > part
> > of the kernel so that it is robust. Userspace can still configure
> > it and
> > so on.
> 
> If the error reporting facilities are for the same hardware "group"
> (like the machine's memory controllers), I agree with you: it makes
> sense to have a single driver. 
> 
> If they are for completely independent hardware then implementing
> as separate drivers would work equally well, with the advantage of
> making easier to maintain and make it generic enough to support
> different vendors using the same IP block.

Right. And if you really want a platform orchestrator for recovery in
the kenrel, it should be a separate one, that consumes data from the
individual IP block drivers that report the raw errors anyway.

But for the main case that really needs to be in the kernel, which is
DRAM, the recovery can usually be contained to the MC driver anyway.

Cheers,
Ben.