linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] AMD64 EDAC: Check for nodes without memory, etc.

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]

Date:   Fri, 1 Nov 2019 16:54:12 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>
Cc:     "linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] AMD64 EDAC: Check for nodes without memory, etc.

On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 03:19:36PM +0000, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> Is the module being probed twice? We have this problem in general, e.g. the
> module gets loaded multiple times on failure.

Yap, it looks like it.

> The clue for me is that node 0 gets detected twice. This is done in
> per_family_init() early in probe_one_instance().
>
> In any case, I think we can make !ecc_enabled(pvt) in probe_one_instance() a
> failure now that we have an explicit check for memory on a node. In other
> words, if we have memory and ECC is disabled then this is a failure for the
> module.

Yeah, for that case we should be printing ecc_msg. Makes sense.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--