linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] 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: <0c045f1b-44d0-430c-9e8a-58b65dd84453@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 09:24:43 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
 James Morse <james.morse@....com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
 Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, 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,
 xueshuai@...ux.alibaba.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
 linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
 linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com, osandov@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] vmcoreinfo: Track and log recoverable hardware errors

On 8/1/25 08:13, Breno Leitao wrote:
> Hello Dave,
> 
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2025 at 07:52:17AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 8/1/25 05:31, Breno Leitao wrote:
>>> Introduce a generic infrastructure for tracking recoverable hardware
>>> errors (HW errors that are visible to the OS but does not cause a panic)
>>> and record them for vmcore consumption.
>> ...
>>
>> Are there patches for the consumer side of this, too? Or do humans
>> looking at crash dumps have to know what to go digging for?
>>
>> In either case, don't we need documentation for this new ABI?
> 
> I have considered this, but the documentation for vmcoreinfo
> (admin-guide/kdump/vmcoreinfo.rst) solely documents what is explicitly
> exposed by vmcore, which differs from the nature of these counters.
> 
> Where would be a good place to document it?

I'm not picky. But you also didn't quite answer the question I was asking.

Is this new data for humans or machines to read?

>>> @@ -1690,6 +1691,9 @@ noinstr void do_machine_check(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>>  	}
>>>  
>>>  out:
>>> +	/* Given it didn't panic, mark it as recoverable */
>>> +	hwerr_log_error_type(HWERR_RECOV_MCE);
>>> +
>>
>> Does "MCE" mean anything outside of x86?
> 
> AFAIK this is a MCE concept.

I'm not really sure what that response means.

There are two problems here. First is that HWERR_RECOV_MCE is defined in
arch-generic code, but it may never get used by anything other than x86
when CONFIG_X86_MCE.

That also completely wastes space in your data structure when
HWERR_RECOV_MCE=n. Not a huge deal as-is, but it's still a bit sloppy
and wasteful.

...
>>> +	hwerr_data[src].count++;
>>> +	hwerr_data[src].timestamp = ktime_get_real_seconds();
>>> +}
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(hwerr_log_error_type);
>>
>> I'd also love to hear more about _actual_ users of this. Surely, someone
>> hit a real world problem and thought this would be a nifty solution. Who
>> was that? What problem did they hit? How does this help them?
> 
> Yes, this has been extensively discussed in the very first version of
> the patch. Borislav raised the same question, which was discussed in the
> following link:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250715125327.GGaHZPRz9QLNNO-7q8@fat_crate.local/

When someone raises a concern, we usually try to alleviate the concern
in a way that is self-contained in the next posting. A cover letter with
a full explanation would be one place to put the reasoning, for example.

But expecting future reviewers to plod through all the old threads isn't
really feasible.