| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:23:21 -0600
From: "Baicar, Tyler" <tbaicar@...eaurora.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: christoffer.dall@...aro.org, marc.zyngier@....com,
pbonzini@...hat.com, rkrcmar@...hat.com, linux@...linux.org.uk,
catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com, rjw@...ysocki.net,
lenb@...nel.org, matt@...eblueprint.co.uk, robert.moore@...el.com,
lv.zheng@...el.com, mark.rutland@....com, james.morse@....com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, sandeepa.s.prabhu@...il.com,
shijie.huang@....com, paul.gortmaker@...driver.com,
tomasz.nowicki@...aro.org, fu.wei@...aro.org, bristot@...hat.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
Dkvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
devel@...ica.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 09/10] trace, ras: add ARM processor error trace event
Hello Steve,
Thank you for your feedback! Responses below.
On 10/7/2016 3:39 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 15:31:21 -0600
> Tyler Baicar <tbaicar@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>
>> Currently there are trace events for the various RAS
>> errors with the exception of ARM processor type errors.
>> Add a new trace event for such errors so that the user
>> will know when they occur. These trace events are
>> consistent with the ARM processor error section type
>> defined in UEFI 2.6 spec section N.2.4.4.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tyler Baicar <tbaicar@...eaurora.org>
>> ---
>> drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c | 9 ++++++
>> drivers/ras/ras.c | 1 +
>> include/ras/ras_event.h | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 3 files changed, 77 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c
>> index f9ffba6..21b8a6f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c
>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c
>> @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
>> #include <linux/aer.h>
>> #include <linux/printk.h>
>> #include <linux/bcd.h>
>> +#include <ras/ras_event.h>
>>
>> #define INDENT_SP " "
>>
>> @@ -256,6 +257,14 @@ static void cper_print_proc_armv8(const char *pfx,
>> CPER_ARMV8_INFO_VALID_PHYSICAL_ADDR)
>> printk("%sphysical fault address: 0x%016llx\n",
>> newpfx, err_info->physical_fault_addr);
>> + trace_arm_event(proc->affinity_level, proc->mpidr, proc->midr,
>> + proc->running_state, proc->psci_state,
>> + err_info->version, err_info->type,
>> + err_info->multiple_error,
>> + err_info->validation_bits,
>> + err_info->error_info,
>> + err_info->virt_fault_addr,
>> + err_info->physical_fault_addr);
> Why waste all the effort into passing each individual field. Why not
> just pass the structure in and sort it out in the TP_fast_assign()?
That should be a lot cleaner, I will make that change in the next patchset.
>> err_info += 1;
>> }
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/ras/ras.c b/drivers/ras/ras.c
>> index fb2500b..8ba5a94 100644
>> --- a/drivers/ras/ras.c
>> +++ b/drivers/ras/ras.c
>> @@ -28,3 +28,4 @@ EXPORT_TRACEPOINT_SYMBOL_GPL(extlog_mem_event);
>> #endif
>> EXPORT_TRACEPOINT_SYMBOL_GPL(mc_event);
>> EXPORT_TRACEPOINT_SYMBOL_GPL(unknown_sec_event);
>> +EXPORT_TRACEPOINT_SYMBOL_GPL(arm_event);
>> diff --git a/include/ras/ras_event.h b/include/ras/ras_event.h
>> index 5861b6f..eb2719a 100644
>> --- a/include/ras/ras_event.h
>> +++ b/include/ras/ras_event.h
>> @@ -162,6 +162,73 @@ TRACE_EVENT(mc_event,
>> );
>>
>> /*
>> + * ARM Processor Events Report
>> + *
>> + * This event is generated when hardware detects an ARM processor error
>> + * has occurred. UEFI 2.6 spec section N.2.4.4.
>> + */
>> +TRACE_EVENT(arm_event,
>> +
>> + TP_PROTO(const u8 affinity,
>> + const u64 mpidr,
>> + const u64 midr,
>> + const u32 running_state,
>> + const u32 psci_state,
>> + const u8 version,
>> + const u8 type,
>> + const u16 err_count,
>> + const u8 flags,
>> + const u64 info,
>> + const u64 virt_fault_addr,
>> + const u64 phys_fault_addr),
>> +
>> + TP_ARGS(affinity, mpidr, midr, running_state, psci_state,
>> + version, type, err_count, flags, info, virt_fault_addr,
>> + phys_fault_addr),
>> +
>> + TP_STRUCT__entry(
>> + __field(u8, affinity)
>> + __field(u64, mpidr)
>> + __field(u64, midr)
>> + __field(u32, running_state)
>> + __field(u32, psci_state)
>> + __field(u8, version)
>> + __field(u8, type)
>> + __field(u16, err_count)
>> + __field(u8, flags)
>> + __field(u64, info)
>> + __field(u64, virt_fault_addr)
>> + __field(u64, phys_fault_addr)
> The above creates a structure with lots of holes in it. Pack it better.
> You want something like:
>
> __field(u64, mpidr)
> __field(u64, midr)
> __field(u64, info)
> __field(u64, virt_fault_addr)
> __field(u64, phys_fault_addr)
> __field(u32, running_state)
> __field(u32, psci_state)
> __field(u16, err_count)
> __field(u8, affinity)
> __field(u8, version)
> __field(u8, type)
> __field(u8, flags)
>
> The above is a total of 54 bytes. Your original was at a minimum, 64
> bytes.
>
> -- Steve
I will reorder the structure in the next patchset. I originally used
this order because that is the order the entries appear in the spec
(table 260 and 261 of UEFI spec 2.6). It makes more sense to save the
space though.
Thanks,
Tyler
>> + ),
>> +
>> + TP_fast_assign(
>> + __entry->affinity = affinity;
>> + __entry->mpidr = mpidr;
>> + __entry->midr = midr;
>> + __entry->running_state = running_state;
>> + __entry->psci_state = psci_state;
>> + __entry->version = version;
>> + __entry->type = type;
>> + __entry->err_count = err_count;
>> + __entry->flags = flags;
>> + __entry->info = info;
>> + __entry->virt_fault_addr = virt_fault_addr;
>> + __entry->phys_fault_addr = phys_fault_addr;
>> + ),
>> +
>> + TP_printk("affinity level: %d; MPIDR: %016llx; MIDR: %016llx; "
>> + "running state: %d; PSCI state: %d; version: %d; type: %d; "
>> + "error count: 0x%04x; flags: 0x%02x; info: %016llx; "
>> + "virtual fault address: %016llx; "
>> + "physical fault address: %016llx",
>> + __entry->affinity, __entry->mpidr, __entry->midr,
>> + __entry->running_state, __entry->psci_state, __entry->version,
>> + __entry->type, __entry->err_count, __entry->flags,
>> + __entry->info, __entry->virt_fault_addr,
>> + __entry->phys_fault_addr)
>> +);
>> +
>> +/*
>> * Unknown Section Report
>> *
>> * This event is generated when hardware detected a hardware
--
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists