linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] efi: Decode UEFI-defined IA32/X64 Error Structure GUIDs

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:   Tue, 27 Feb 2018 15:31:50 +0000
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To:     "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        "linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] efi: Decode UEFI-defined IA32/X64 Error Structure GUIDs

On 27 February 2018 at 15:28, Ghannam, Yazen <Yazen.Ghannam@....com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Borislav Petkov [mailto:bp@...e.de]
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 9:30 AM
>> To: Ghannam, Yazen <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>
>> Cc: linux-efi@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
>> ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org; x86@...nel.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] efi: Decode UEFI-defined IA32/X64 Error
>> Structure GUIDs
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 01:39:00PM -0600, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
>> > @@ -45,6 +81,11 @@ void cper_print_proc_ia(const char *pfx, const struct
>> cper_sec_proc_ia *proc)
>> >             printk("%sError Structure Type: %pUl\n", newpfx,
>> >                    &err_info->err_type);
>> >
>> > +           err_type = cper_get_err_type(&err_info->err_type);
>> > +           printk("%sError Structure Type: %s\n", newpfx,
>> > +                  err_type < ARRAY_SIZE(cper_proc_error_type_strs) ?
>> > +                  cper_proc_error_type_strs[err_type] : "unknown");
>>
>> Ah, there it is, much better. Now this tells us what component it is.
>>
>> So cper-arm.c does the same thing and there's a similar thing in cper.c -
>> cper_print_proc_generic().
>>
>> Let's not tri-plicate that code pls and have a generic function instead.
>>
>
> Sure, I can do that.
>
> Ard, is this okay?
>

Yes, please, but only if there's something to gain by it.