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: <SN6PR12MB2639E02109E30165D4A37D8AF8A10@SN6PR12MB2639.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Aug 2019 14:19:18 +0000
From:   "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-edac-owner@...r.kernel.org <linux-edac-owner@...r.kernel.org> On Behalf Of Borislav Petkov
> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 10:38 AM
> To: Ghannam, Yazen <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>
> Cc: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@...band.pl>; linux-edac@...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?
> 

I was tracking down the failure with ECC disabled, and that seems to be it.

So I think we should return 0 "if (!edac_has_mcs())", because we'd only get
there if ECC is disabled on all nodes and there wasn't some other initialization
error.

I'll send a patch for this soon.

Adam, would you mind testing this patch?

Thanks,
Yazen