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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ab3caa8c-daf0-4d35-a7c7-b1a14f7bc1bb@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 17:10:27 +0200
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To: "Joseph, Jithu" <jithu.joseph@...el.com>,
 Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
 ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.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

Hi,

Thank you for this patch series.

On 4/12/24 9:31 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 ...

I've modified the commit message using the rewording suggested above
while merging this patch and I have merged the entire series:

Thank you for your patch-series, I've applied the series to my
review-hans branch:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/pdx86/platform-drivers-x86.git/log/?h=review-hans

Once I've run some tests on this branch the patches there will be
added to the platform-drivers-x86/for-next branch and eventually
will be included in the pdx86 pull-request to Linus for the next
merge-window.

Regards,

Hans






>>> 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
>