linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/4] acpi: apei: Split GHES handlers outside of ghes_do

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: <5f26275c-5896-c552-69c4-78e5aaaa6558@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Apr 2018 09:19:03 -0500
From:   "Alex G." <mr.nuke.me@...il.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
        rjw@...ysocki.net, lenb@...nel.org, tony.luck@...el.com,
        tbaicar@...eaurora.org, will.deacon@....com, james.morse@....com,
        shiju.jose@...wei.com, zjzhang@...eaurora.org,
        gengdongjiu@...wei.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        alex_gagniuc@...lteam.com, austin_bolen@...l.com,
        shyam_iyer@...l.com, devel@...ica.org, mchehab@...nel.org,
        robert.moore@...el.com, erik.schmauss@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/4] acpi: apei: Split GHES handlers outside of
 ghes_do_proc


On 04/18/2018 12:52 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 04:59:01PM -0500, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:
>>  static void ghes_do_proc(struct ghes *ghes,
>>  			 const struct acpi_hest_generic_status *estatus)
>>  {
>>  	int sev, sec_sev;
>>  	struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata;
>> +	const struct ghes_handler *handler;
>>  	guid_t *sec_type;
>>  	guid_t *fru_id = &NULL_UUID_LE;
>>  	char *fru_text = "";
>> @@ -478,21 +537,10 @@ static void ghes_do_proc(struct ghes *ghes,
>>  		if (gdata->validation_bits & CPER_SEC_VALID_FRU_TEXT)
>>  			fru_text = gdata->fru_text;
>>  
>> -		if (guid_equal(sec_type, &CPER_SEC_PLATFORM_MEM)) {
>> -			struct cper_sec_mem_err *mem_err = acpi_hest_get_payload(gdata);
>> -
>> -			ghes_edac_report_mem_error(sev, mem_err);
>> -
>> -			arch_apei_report_mem_error(sev, mem_err);
>> -			ghes_handle_memory_failure(gdata, sev);
>> -		}
>> -		else if (guid_equal(sec_type, &CPER_SEC_PCIE)) {
>> -			ghes_handle_aer(gdata);
>> -		}
>> -		else if (guid_equal(sec_type, &CPER_SEC_PROC_ARM)) {
>> -			struct cper_sec_proc_arm *err = acpi_hest_get_payload(gdata);
>>  
>> -			log_arm_hw_error(err);
>> +		handler = get_handler(sec_type);
> 
> I don't like this - it was better and more readable before because I can
> follow which handler gets called. This change makes is less readable.

I agree with the readability argument in the current situation of three
handlers. I guess I was thinking ahead and generalizing for an arbitrary
number of handlers.

On the other side, you lose readability as soon as you get a few more
handlers and the function becomes too long. And more importantly, you
lose generality: it's not obvious that there's
ghes_edac_report_mem_error() which too wide a context.

Alex