linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 3/7] acpi: apei: remove the unused code

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]

Date:   Mon, 11 Sep 2017 20:04:21 +0800
From:   gengdongjiu <gengdongjiu@...wei.com>
To:     James Morse <james.morse@....com>
CC:     <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>, <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        <rkrcmar@...hat.com>, <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        <catalin.marinas@....com>, <will.deacon@....com>,
        <lenb@...nel.org>, <robert.moore@...el.com>, <lv.zheng@...el.com>,
        <mark.rutland@....com>, <xiexiuqi@...wei.com>,
        <cov@...eaurora.org>, <david.daney@...ium.com>,
        <suzuki.poulose@....com>, <stefan@...lo-penguin.com>,
        <Dave.Martin@....com>, <kristina.martsenko@....com>,
        <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, <tbaicar@...eaurora.org>,
        <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>, <mingo@...nel.org>, <bp@...e.de>,
        <shiju.jose@...wei.com>, <zjzhang@...eaurora.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devel@...ica.org>, <mst@...hat.com>, <john.garry@...wei.com>,
        <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
        <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>, <huangdaode@...ilicon.com>,
        <wangzhou1@...ilicon.com>, <huangshaoyu@...wei.com>,
        <wuquanming@...wei.com>, <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        <zhengqiang10@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/7] acpi: apei: remove the unused code

James,
   Thanks for the review.

On 2017/9/9 2:17, James Morse wrote:
> Hi gengdongjiu,
> 
> On 04/09/17 12:43, gengdongjiu wrote:
>> On 2017/9/1 1:50, James Morse wrote:
>>> On 28/08/17 11:38, Dongjiu Geng wrote:
>>>> In current code logic, the two functions ghes_sea_add() and
>>>> ghes_sea_remove() are only called when CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_SEA
>>>> is defined. If not, it will return errors in the ghes_probe()
>>>> and not contiue. Hence, remove the unnecessary handling when
>>>> CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_SEI is not defined.
>>>
>>> This doesn't match what the patch does. I get this feeling this is needed for
>>> some future patch you haven't included.
>>
>> James, let check the code, when the ghes_probe, if the CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_SEA is not defined.
>> it will return -ENOTSUPP and goto error, and the ghes_sea_add has no chance to execute.
>> similar, if the probe is failed, it should not have chance to execute ghes_sea_remove.
> 
> It's the 'unnecessary handling when CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_SEI' in the commit message
> that confuses me: this patch doesn't reference that Kconfig symbol. I guess that
> sentence needs removing for this v6?
 thanks for the pointing out, That needs to be removed for v6.

> 
> Re-reading without that part of the commit-message:
> 
> You're relying on the compiler's dead-code elimination to spot unused static
> functions and silently drop them. Great!
> (there is the small risk that gcc 3.2[0] can't do this, x86 still has to support
> this gcc version)
> 
> As this is just clean-up patch can you break it out of this series, it isn't
> needed to add support for SEI.
sure, I will.

> 
> (This series adds support for what should be an APEI notification, but the only
> code that touches APEI removes some code from a different notification method.)

understand.

> 
> 
>>> Setting NOTIFY_SEI as the GHES entry's notification type means the OS should
>>> check the GHES->ErrorStatusAddress for CPER records when it receives an
>>> SError-Interrupt, as it may be a notification of an error from this error source.
> 
>> previously I added the NOTIFY_SEI support,
> 
> (Yes, I saw that in v5 and expected this series to add some APEI support code )
> 
> 
>> but consider the error address in CPER is not accurate and calling memory_failure() may not make sense.
>> so I remove it.
> 
> 'not accurate'... this is going to be a problem, but lets keep that discussion
> on the cover-letter.

Ok.


> 
> 
>>> If you aren't handling the notification, why is this is in the HEST at all?
>>> (and if its not: its not firmware-first)
> 
>> For the SEI notification, may be we can parse and handle the CPER record other than the Error physical address
> 
> Sure, but I only see this cleanup patch in this series, where does APEI learn
> about NOTIFY_SEI? As this is nothing will ever touch those CPER records, if
> you're using GHESv2 firmware will be prevented from delivering subsequent
> notifications.
James, whether it is possible you can review the previous v5 patch which adds the support for NOTIFY_SEI? thanks in advancecIn that patch, I share the SEI notification handling with the SEA notification handling to avoid duplicated code.

https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg601767.html

> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> James
> 
> [0]
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/admin-guide/README.rst#n251
> 
> .
>