linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] vmcoreinfo: Track and log recoverable hardware errors

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: <4ef01be1-44b2-4bf5-afec-a90d4f71e955@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 09:08:25 +0800
From: Shuai Xue <xueshuai@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
 James Morse <james.morse@....com>, Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
 Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
 Mahesh J Salgaonkar <mahesh@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@...il.com>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
 linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 acpica-devel@...ts.linux.dev, osandov@...ndov.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
 linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
 linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] vmcoreinfo: Track and log recoverable hardware errors

在 2025/7/26 00:16, Breno Leitao 写道:
> Hello Shuai,
> 
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 03:40:58PM +0800, Shuai Xue wrote:
>>>> APEI does not define an error type named GHES. GHES is just a kernel
>>>> driver name. Many hardware error types can be handled in GHES (see
>>>> ghes_do_proc), for example, AER is routed by GHES when firmware-first
>>>> mode is used. As far as I know, firmware-first mode is commonly used in
>>>> production. Should GHES errors be categorized into AER, memory, and CXL
>>>> memory instead?
>>>
>>> I also considered slicing the data differently initially, but then
>>> realized it would add more complexity than necessary for my needs.
>>>
>>> If you believe we should further subdivide the data, I’m happy to do so.
>>>
>>> You’re suggesting a structure like this, which would then map to the
>>> corresponding CPER_SEC_ sections:
>>>
>>> 	enum hwerr_error_type {
>>> 	HWERR_RECOV_AER,     // maps to CPER_SEC_PCIE
>>> 	HWERR_RECOV_MCE,     // maps to default MCE + CPER_SEC_PCIE
>>
>> CPER_SEC_PCIE is typo?
> 
> Correct, HWERR_RECOV_MCE would map to the regular MCE and not errors
> coming from GHES.
> 
>>> 	HWERR_RECOV_CXL,     // maps to CPER_SEC_CXL_*
>>> 	HWERR_RECOV_MEMORY,  // maps to CPER_SEC_PLATFORM_MEM
>>> 	}
>>>
>>> Additionally, what about events related to CPU, Firmware, or DMA
>>> errors—for example, CPER_SEC_PROC, CPER_SEC_FW, CPER_SEC_DMAR? Should we
>>> include those in the classification as well?
>>
>> I would like to split a error from ghes to its own type,
>> it sounds more reasonable. I can not tell what happened from HWERR_RECOV_AERat all :(
> 
> Makes sense. Regarding your answer, I suppose we might want to have
> something like the following:
> 
> 	enum hwerr_error_type {
> 		HWERR_RECOV_MCE,     // maps to errors in do_machine_check()
> 		HWERR_RECOV_CXL,     // maps to CPER_SEC_CXL_
> 		HWERR_RECOV_PCI,     // maps to AER (pci_dev_aer_stats_incr()) and CPER_SEC_PCIE and CPER_SEC_PCI
> 		HWERR_RECOV_MEMORY,  // maps to CPER_SEC_PLATFORM_MEM_
> 		HWERR_RECOV_CPU,     // maps to CPER_SEC_PROC_
> 		HWERR_RECOV_DMA,     // maps to CPER_SEC_DMAR_
> 		HWERR_RECOV_OTHERS,  // maps to CPER_SEC_FW_, CPER_SEC_DMAR_,
> 	}
> 
> Is this what you think we should track?
> 
> Thanks
> --breno

It sounds good to me.

Thanks.
Shuai