linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Incorporate DRAM address in EDAC messages

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: <20251013220019.GFaO12cwSvbedQwGr6@fat_crate.local>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:19 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Avadhut Naik <avadhut.naik@....com>
Cc: linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, yazen.ghannam@....com, john.allen@....com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Incorporate DRAM address in EDAC messages

On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 07:34:47PM +0000, Avadhut Naik wrote:
> Currently, the amd64_edac module only provides UMC normalized and system
> physical address when a DRAM ECC error occurs. DRAM Address is neither
> logged nor exported through tracepoint.
> 
> Modern AMD SOCs provide UEFI PRM module that implements various address
> translation PRM handlers. These PRM handlers can be leveraged to convert
> UMC normalized address into DRAM address at runtime on occurrence of a
> DRAM ECC error. This translated DRAM address can then be logged and
> exported through tracepoints.

And?

I read all three commit messages to figure out *why* those DRAM addresses want
to be logged. But it seems they don't want to be logged. Because there's not
a single reason why they should be, AFAICT. Without a proper justification,
this looks like a bunch of unnecessary code to me...

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette