linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v3 3/8] efi: Decode IA32/X64 Processor Error Info Structure

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: <DM5PR12MB19162707D0F98D1A061F0A7AF8A20@DM5PR12MB1916.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:53:44 +0000
From:   "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:     "linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org" <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "tony.luck@...el.com" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 3/8] efi: Decode IA32/X64 Processor Error Info
 Structure

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 6:55 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; tony.luck@...el.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/8] efi: Decode IA32/X64 Processor Error Info
> Structure
> 
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 01:49:35PM -0500, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
> > From: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
> >
> > Print the fields in the IA32/X64 Processor Error Info Structure.
> >
> > Based on UEFI 2.7 Table 253. IA32/X64 Processor Error Information
> > Structure.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
> > ---
> > Link:
> > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180226193904.20532-4-
> Yazen.Ghannam@....com
> >
> > v2->v3:
> > * Fix table number in commit message.
> > * Don't print raw validation bits.
> >
> > v1->v2:
> > * Add parantheses around "bits" expression in macro.
> > * Fix indentation on multi-line statements.
> >
> >  drivers/firmware/efi/cper-x86.c | 50
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 50 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper-x86.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper-
> x86.c
> > index 863f0cd2a0ff..a9ab3bbf7986 100644
> > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper-x86.c
> > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper-x86.c
> > @@ -3,15 +3,28 @@
> >
> >  #include <linux/cper.h>
> >
> > +#define INDENT_SP	" "
> 
> There's that thing again. So it was a total waste of time discussing
> this last time. So let me save my time this time:
> 
> NAKed-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
> 

IIRC, the arguments for keeping this are
1) convention for CPER
2) code readability

The argument against was
1) it's dumb

So I decided to keep it. I don't really mind either way so I'll change it
if there's a second opinion.

Thanks,
Yazen