linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v3 0/5] 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:   Wed, 6 Nov 2019 18:16:12 +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 v3 0/5] 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: Wednesday, November 6, 2019 11:06 AM
> To: Ghannam, Yazen <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>
> Cc: linux-edac@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] AMD64 EDAC: Check for nodes without memory, etc.
> 
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 01:24:59AM +0000, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> > From: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
> >
> > Hi Boris,
> >
> > These patches address the issue where the module checks and complains
> > about DRAM ECC on nodes without memory.
> >
> > Changes from last revision:
> >   1) Dropped patch 6 which was for adding a grain value.
> >   2) Added an error code for !ecc_enabled() in patch 5.
> 
> Still doesn't help. The load gets attempted twice still. Try reproducing
> it on a small, single-node box where ECC is disabled.
> 

We had a thread before about usersapce loading the module multiple times on
failure:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-edac/20190822005020.GA403@angband.pl/

I tried to look into it a bit, but I didn't get very far.

So is the behavior you see only happening with the new patchset applied? That
may be a clue that we can fix this in the module.

Thanks,
Yazen