Re: [PATCH 3/3] EDAC, ghes: Make it a proper module
From: Kani, Toshimitsu
Date: Tue Aug 01 2017 - 20:20:54 EST
On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 11:46 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 08:19:32PM +0000, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote:
> > I'd prefer to add the whitelist check to ghes_edac first.ÂÂThis
> > makes the existing code to work.ÂÂWe can then work on refactoring
> > changes like this on top of it without breaking the functionality.
> Yes, but we want only the whitelist - not the FF testing because, as
> we said, BIOS is notoriously buggy so we're going to load ghes_edac
> only on known-good platforms.
This GHES-probe itself is appropriate and should remain. Since not all
GHES firmware can be trusted, we will add the white-list as an
additional condition to complement this check.
> Which brings the question about the priority.
> And I *think* the easiest would be if the whitelist were in the core
> edac.ko module, perhaps in edac_module.c (even though it doesn't
> really matter, technically).
I agree that adding the white-list into the core edac module is the
easiest when we make the change on top of yours. Thinking further on
this, though, I now think that keeping the current implementation is
more reasonable with the reasons below.
1. Device-probing-logic should belong to a driver, and should remain
private to a driver. When we add the white-list, it should be added to
2. ghes_edac is an extension to the ghes driver as they both are
specific to ghes. ghes_edac is merely ghes driver's edac error-
reporting wrapper than an independent edac driver. It looks OK to let
ghes_edac get registered as part of ghes_probe() and leave it as an
unconventional edac driver.
3. EDAC does not have its managed probe-chain. All edac drivers are
called from module_init list. They independently probe the hardware
and get unloaded when not needed. The core edac is simply a set of
library to them. I think it's good to keep them independent, and not
to introduce a new central mechanism for a special case like ghes_edac.