From: "Kani, Toshimitsu" <toshi.kani@hpe.com>
To: "aris@redhat.com" <aris@redhat.com>, "bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>
CC: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "mchehab@kernel.org" <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        "rjw@rjwysocki.net" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        "srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com" 
        <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        "tony.luck@intel.com" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        "lenb@kernel.org" <lenb@kernel.org>,
        "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-edac@vger.kernel.org" <linux-edac@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ghes_edac: add platform check to enable ghes_edac
Thread-Topic: [PATCH 3/3] ghes_edac: add platform check to enable ghes_edac
Thread-Index: AQHS/0lGOl4i5ss6QUSn88C0VF1rJqJZF6OAgAAj5gCAANq7AIAAkZmAgACp84CAAAXuAIAAKsQAgAATXQA=
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 20:13:41 +0000
Message-ID: <1500494666.2042.33.camel@hpe.com>
References: <20170717215912.26070-1-toshi.kani@hpe.com>
         <20170717215912.26070-4-toshi.kani@hpe.com>
         <20170718060007.GB8736@nazgul.tnic> <20170718080836.GB8372@nazgul.tnic>
         <1500412288.2042.25.camel@hpe.com> <20170719055235.GD26030@nazgul.tnic>
         <1500480051.2042.27.camel@hpe.com> <20170719162204.GE16124@nazgul.tnic>
         <20170719185508.GC16076@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20170719185508.GC16076@redhat.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <B71CFD522179AB4183B6B6260CBB637D@NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 19 Jul 2017 20:13:41.6786
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 105b2061-b669-4b31-92ac-24d304d195dc
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DF4PR84MB0188
X-OriginatorOrg: hpe.com
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by nfs id v6JKDvlB025050
Content-Length: 998
Lines: 25

On Wed, 2017-07-19 at 14:55 -0400, Aristeu Rozanski wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 06:22:04PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 04:10:07PM +0000, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote:
> > > I do prefer to avoid any white / black listing.  But I do not see
> > > how
> > > it solves the buggy DMI/SMBIOS info as an example of firmware
> > > bugs we
> > > may have to deal with.
> > 
> > So how do you want to deal with this?
> > 
> > Maintain an evergrowing whitelist of platforms which are OK and
> > then the moment a new platform comes along, you send a patch to add
> > it to that whitelist?
> 
> That would also need to keep an eye on versions. A newer version of
> BIOS on a whitelisted platform might be broken.

Right.  I think a question comes to who broke a running system -- OS
update or BIOS update.  This whitelist attempts to protect the former
case by not introducing ghes_edac on arbitrary platforms.  The latter
case should be vendor's responsibility.

Thanks,
-Toshi