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 13:46:48 -0700
From: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Joseph, Jithu" <jithu.joseph@...el.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


On 4/12/24 12:31 PM, Joseph, Jithu wrote:
> 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 ...

Looks good to me.

>>> 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

-- 
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer