linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] AMD64 EDAC fixes

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: <20190823153739.GC28379@zn.tnic>
Date:   Fri, 23 Aug 2019 17:37:39 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>
Cc:     Adam Borowski <kilobyte@...band.pl>,
        "linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] AMD64 EDAC fixes

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 03:28:59PM +0000, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> Boris, Do you think it'd be appropriate to change the return values
> for some cases?
>
> For example, ECC disabled is a hardware configuration. This doesn't
> mean that the module failed any operations in this case.
>
> In other words, the module checks for a feature. If the feature is not
> present, then return without failure (and maybe give a message).

That makes sense but AFAICT if probe_one_instance() sees that ECC is not
enabled, it returns 0.

The "if (!edac_has_mcs())" check later is to verify that at least once
instance was loaded successfully and, if not, then return an error.

So where does it return failure?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.