linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/8] ACPI, APEI, CPER: Cleanup CPER memory error output format

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: <20131011160208.GL5925@pd.tnic>
Date:	Fri, 11 Oct 2013 18:02:08 +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 7/8] ACPI, APEI, CPER: Cleanup CPER memory error output
 format

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 02:32:45AM -0400, Chen, Gong wrote:
> Keep up only the most important fields for memory error
> reporting. The detail information will be moved to perf/trace
> interface.
> 
> Suggested-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chen, Gong <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/apei/cper.c | 42 ++++++++++++++----------------------------
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/apei/cper.c b/drivers/acpi/apei/cper.c
> index 2a4389f..567410e 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/apei/cper.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/apei/cper.c
> @@ -206,29 +206,29 @@ static void cper_print_mem(const char *pfx, const struct cper_sec_mem_err *mem)
>  		printk("%s""physical_address_mask: 0x%016llx\n",
>  		       pfx, mem->physical_addr_mask);
>  	if (mem->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_NODE)
> -		printk("%s""node: %d\n", pfx, mem->node);
> +		pr_debug("node: %d\n", mem->node);
>  	if (mem->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_CARD)
> -		printk("%s""card: %d\n", pfx, mem->card);
> +		pr_debug("card: %d\n", mem->card);
>  	if (mem->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_MODULE)
> -		printk("%s""module: %d\n", pfx, mem->module);
> +		pr_debug("module: %d\n", mem->module);
>  	if (mem->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_RANK_NUMBER)
> -		printk("%s""rank: %d\n", pfx, mem->rank);
> +		pr_debug("rank: %d\n", mem->rank);
>  	if (mem->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_BANK)
> -		printk("%s""bank: %d\n", pfx, mem->bank);
> +		pr_debug("bank: %d\n", mem->bank);
>  	if (mem->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_DEVICE)
> -		printk("%s""device: %d\n", pfx, mem->device);
> +		pr_debug("device: %d\n", mem->device);
>  	if (mem->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_ROW)
> -		printk("%s""row: %d\n", pfx, mem->row);
> +		pr_debug("row: %d\n", mem->row);
>  	if (mem->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_COLUMN)
> -		printk("%s""column: %d\n", pfx, mem->column);
> +		pr_debug("column: %d\n", mem->column);
>  	if (mem->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_BIT_POSITION)
> -		printk("%s""bit_position: %d\n", pfx, mem->bit_pos);
> +		pr_debug("bit_position: %d\n", mem->bit_pos);
>  	if (mem->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_REQUESTOR_ID)
> -		printk("%s""requestor_id: 0x%016llx\n", pfx, mem->requestor_id);
> +		pr_debug("requestor_id: 0x%016llx\n", mem->requestor_id);
>  	if (mem->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_RESPONDER_ID)
> -		printk("%s""responder_id: 0x%016llx\n", pfx, mem->responder_id);
> +		pr_debug("responder_id: 0x%016llx\n", mem->responder_id);
>  	if (mem->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_TARGET_ID)
> -		printk("%s""target_id: 0x%016llx\n", pfx, mem->target_id);
> +		pr_debug("target_id: 0x%016llx\n", mem->target_id);
>  	if (mem->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_ERROR_TYPE) {
>  		u8 etype = mem->error_type;
>  		printk("%s""error_type: %d, %s\n", pfx, etype,

Hmm, so this cper_print_mem is called for CPER_SEC_PLATFORM_MEM section
type.

With the change above, the other caller __ghes_print_estatus() won't see
the error messages if they're debug. Do we want that?

-- 
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/