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
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{�����ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
