linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/MCE: Add command line option to extend MCE Records pool

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: <ad674def-f129-4470-b07d-b1ed809da4eb@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2024 12:16:11 -0800
From: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
To: "Naik, Avadhut" <avadnaik@....com>, <x86@...nel.org>,
	<linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>
CC: <bp@...en8.de>, <tony.luck@...el.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<yazen.ghannam@....com>, Avadhut Naik <avadhut.naik@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/MCE: Add command line option to extend MCE
 Records pool

On 2/9/2024 12:02 PM, Naik, Avadhut wrote:

> Is it safe to assume that users will always want to increase the size of the
> pool and not decrease it?
> 
> IMO, the command-line option provides flexibility for users to choose the size of
> MCE Records pool in case, they don't agree with the CPU count logic. Just added it
> to ensure that we are not enforcing this increased memory footprint across the board.
> 
> Would you agree?
> 

Not really. Providing this level of configuration seems excessive and
unnecessary.

To me, it seems that we are over-compensating with the calculations in
the previous patch and then providing a mechanism to correct it here and
putting this burden on the user.

How about being more conservative with the allocations in the previous
patch so that we don't need to introduce this additional mechanism right
now? Later, if there is really a need for some specific usage, the patch
can be re-submitted then with the supporting data.

Sohil