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]

Message-ID: <SN6PR12MB2639B236A40754633C8E67F5F87E0@SN6PR12MB2639.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Nov 2019 13:38:15 +0000
From:   "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
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.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-edac-owner@...r.kernel.org <linux-edac-owner@...r.kernel.org> On Behalf Of Borislav Petkov
> Sent: Friday, November 1, 2019 11:54 AM
> To: Ghannam, Yazen <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>
> Cc: linux-edac@...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.
> 

Do you have any other comments on this set? Should I send another revision
with this change?

Thanks,
Yazen