linux-kernel - Re: [UNVERIFIED SENDER] Re: [RFC 1/1] edac: Add a counter parameter for edac_device_handle

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: <355dc172-52f5-3d9c-883a-4ad1fd10d54c@amazon.com>
Date:   Sun, 28 Jul 2019 12:34:35 +0300
From:   "Hawa, Hanna" <hhhawa@...zon.com>
To:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>
CC:     <thor.thayer@...ux.intel.com>, <bp@...en8.de>,
        <james.morse@....com>, <rric@...nel.org>, <morbidrsa@...il.com>,
        <ralf@...ux-mips.org>, <david.daney@...ium.com>,
        <andy.gross@...aro.org>, <david.brown@...aro.org>,
        <ckadabi@...eaurora.org>, <vnkgutta@...eaurora.org>,
        <jglauber@...ium.com>, <khuong@...amperecomputing.com>,
        <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>, <benh@...zon.com>, <ronenk@...zon.com>,
        <talel@...zon.com>, <jonnyc@...zon.com>, <hanochu@...zon.com>,
        <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [UNVERIFIED SENDER] Re: [RFC 1/1] edac: Add a counter parameter
 for edac_device_handle_ue/ce()



On 7/25/2019 9:36 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>   	/* Propagate the count up the 'totals' tree */
>> -	instance->counters.ue_count++;
>> -	edac_dev->counters.ue_count++;
>> +	instance->counters.ue_count += error_count;
>> +	edac_dev->counters.ue_count += error_count;
> Patch itself looks a good idea, but maybe it should rise a WARN()
> if error_count == 0.
Good point, shouldn't we use WARN_ONCE here? if the user call 
edac_device_handle_ue() with error count == 0, it not be change in 
run-time, only if the error count parameter is calculated somehow, and 
it'll be the *caller* issue that didn't check the error count.
What you think?

> 
> That applies for both CE and UE error logic.
Sure.

Thanks,
Hanna
> 
> Thanks,
> Mauro