linux-kernel - RE: 回复: [PATCH] ACPI: APEI: move edac_init ahead of ghes platform drv register

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:   Tue, 9 Aug 2022 15:39:43 +0000
From:   "Kani, Toshi" <toshi.kani@....com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:     Justin He <Justin.He@....com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, James Morse <James.Morse@....com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        "Robert Richter" <rric@...nel.org>,
        Shuai Xue <xueshuai@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:EDAC-CORE" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: 回复: [PATCH] ACPI: APEI: move edac_init ahead of ghes platform drv register

On Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2022 9:14 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 02:36:33PM +0000, Kani, Toshi wrote:
> > The logic needs to be latched on ghes presence, i.e., the condition is
> 
> If GHES is not enabled, there'll of course be a stub which returns
> false.

Right.  Just checking since the example pseudo code did not have it.
 
> > Agree that changing all edac drivers to check with GHES is an option.
> 
> Not all - all relevant drivers for your - HPE - use case. We don't load
> ghes_edac on anything else. Known-good platforms only, remember?

I think this should be all edac drivers on x86.

> > In this approach, though, they will need to check with foo_preferred()
> > when a new FW interface FOO is introduced.
> 
> I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean here.

I was referring a hypothetical future case that ACPI GHES might not be
the only FW interface for FF-based memory error reporting table going
forward.

Toshi