linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Classify error scenarios correctly

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: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:31:01 -0700
From: "Joseph, Jithu" <jithu.joseph@...el.com>
To: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
	<ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>, <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
	<markgross@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
	<ashok.raj@...el.com>, <tony.luck@...el.com>, <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	<ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>, <patches@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Classify error scenarios
 correctly

Sathya,

Thanks for reviewing this

On 4/12/2024 11:32 AM, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> 
> On 4/12/24 10:23 AM, Jithu Joseph wrote:
>> Based on inputs from hardware architects, only "scan signature failures"
>> should be treated as actual hardware/cpu failure.
> 
> Instead of just saying input from hardware architects, it would be better
> if you mention the rationale behind it.

I can reword the first para as below:

"Scan controller error" means that scan hardware encountered an error
prior to doing an actual test on the target CPU. It does not mean that
there is an actual cpu/core failure. "scan signature failure" indicates
that the test result on the target core did not match the expected value
and should be treated as a cpu failure.

Current driver classifies both these scenarios as failures. Modify ...

> 
>> Current driver, in addition, classifies "scan controller error" scenario
>> too as a hardware/cpu failure. Modify the driver to classify this situation
>> with a more appropriate "untested" status instead of "fail" status.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jithu Joseph <jithu.joseph@...el.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
>> Reviewe
> 
> Code wise it looks good to me.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
> 


Jithu