linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/8] ACPI, APEI, CPER: Enhance memory reporting capability

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]

Message-ID: <20131011154938.GK5925@pd.tnic>
Date:	Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:49:38 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	"Chen, Gong" <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	tony.luck@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] ACPI, APEI, CPER: Enhance memory reporting capability

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 02:32:44AM -0400, Chen, Gong wrote:
> After H/W error happens under FFM enabled mode, lots of information
> are shown but some important parts like DIMM location missed. This
> patch is used to show these extra fileds.
> 
> Original-author: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chen, Gong <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/apei/cper.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/apei/cper.c b/drivers/acpi/apei/cper.c
> index 680230c..2a4389f 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/apei/cper.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/apei/cper.c
> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
>  #include <linux/module.h>
>  #include <linux/time.h>
>  #include <linux/cper.h>
> +#include <linux/dmi.h>
>  #include <linux/acpi.h>
>  #include <linux/pci.h>
>  #include <linux/aer.h>
> @@ -210,6 +211,8 @@ static void cper_print_mem(const char *pfx, const struct cper_sec_mem_err *mem)
>  		printk("%s""card: %d\n", pfx, mem->card);
>  	if (mem->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_MODULE)
>  		printk("%s""module: %d\n", pfx, mem->module);
> +	if (mem->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_RANK_NUMBER)
> +		printk("%s""rank: %d\n", pfx, mem->rank);
>  	if (mem->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_BANK)
>  		printk("%s""bank: %d\n", pfx, mem->bank);
>  	if (mem->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_DEVICE)
> @@ -232,6 +235,15 @@ static void cper_print_mem(const char *pfx, const struct cper_sec_mem_err *mem)
>  		       etype < ARRAY_SIZE(cper_mem_err_type_strs) ?
>  		       cper_mem_err_type_strs[etype] : "unknown");
>  	}
> +	if (mem->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_MODULE_HANDLE) {
> +		const char *bank = NULL, *device = NULL;
> +		dmi_memdev_name(mem->mem_dev_handle, &bank, &device);
> +		if (bank != NULL && device != NULL)
> +			printk("%s""DIMM location: %s %s", pfx, bank, device);
> +		else
> +			printk("%s""DIMM DMI handle: 0x%.4x", pfx,
> +					mem->mem_dev_handle);

Just a nitpick: maybe better arg alignment:

			printk("%s""DIMM DMI handle: 0x%.4x",
			       pfx, mem->mem_dev_handle);

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/