linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] EDAC/amd64: Enumerate memory on noncpu nodes

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: <YT+WRx9Y2W+GRymJ@yaz-ubuntu>
Date:   Mon, 13 Sep 2021 18:19:51 +0000
From:   Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Naveen Krishna Chatradhi <nchatrad@....com>,
        linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mchehab@...nel.org,
        Muralidhara M K <muralimk@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] EDAC/amd64: Enumerate memory on noncpu nodes

On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 08:41:46PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 06:42:26PM +0000, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
> > err.channel still needs to be used in error_address_to_page_and_offset()
> > below.
> 
> I think you mean __log_ecc_error().
>

Yep, you're right.
 
> > This is a good idea. But we have a global *fam_type, so this should be moved
> > into struct amd64_pvt, if possible. Then each node can have its own fam_type.
> 
> per_family_init() does assign stuff to pvt members so yes, we're saying
> the same thing, practically.
> 
> > Fair point. I like the idea of having unique names though. Is this possible
> > with the current EDAC framework? Or is it not worth it?
> 
> We don't have unique names for the CPU nodes:
> 
> [   25.637486] EDAC MC0: Giving out device to module amd64_edac controller F17h_M30h: DEV 0000:00:18.3 (INTERRUPT)
> [   25.799554] EDAC MC1: Giving out device to module amd64_edac controller F17h_M30h: DEV 0000:00:19.3 (INTERRUPT)
> 
> why does it matter to have unique names for the accelerators?
> 
> If you wanna differentiate them, you can dump the PCI devs like above.
> 
> Just to make it clear - I'm not against it per-se - I'd just need a
> stronger justification for doing this than just "I like the idea".
>

There isn't a strong reason at the moment. I think it may be one less hurdle
for users to go through when identifying a device. But, as you said, there are
other ways to differentiate devices.

Thanks,
Yazen