linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] ACPI / APEI: Add SEI notification type support for ARMv8

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: <5aed8a29-a2c2-5080-d954-90c7f817ada1@huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Jun 2018 18:07:52 +0800
From:   gengdongjiu <gengdongjiu@...wei.com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
CC:     <catalin.marinas@....com>, <will.deacon@....com>,
        <rjw@...ysocki.net>, <lenb@...nel.org>, <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        <bp@...en8.de>, <robert.moore@...el.com>,
        <erik.schmauss@...el.com>, <dave.martin@....com>,
        <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>, <james.morse@....com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] ACPI / APEI: Add SEI notification type support for
 ARMv8

Hi Mark,
   Thanks for the comments.

On 2018/5/31 18:52, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 08:41:45PM +0800, Dongjiu Geng wrote:
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_SEI
>> +static LIST_HEAD(ghes_sei);
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Return 0 only if one of the SEI error sources successfully reported an error
>> + * record sent from the firmware.
>> + */
>> +int ghes_notify_sei(void)
>> +{
>> +	struct ghes *ghes;
>> +	int ret = -ENOENT;
>> +
>> +	rcu_read_lock();
>> +	list_for_each_entry_rcu(ghes, &ghes_sei, list) {
>> +		if (!ghes_proc(ghes))
>> +			ret = 0;
>> +	}
>> +	rcu_read_unlock();
>> +	return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void ghes_sei_add(struct ghes *ghes)
>> +{
>> +	mutex_lock(&ghes_list_mutex);
>> +	list_add_rcu(&ghes->list, &ghes_sei);
>> +	mutex_unlock(&ghes_list_mutex);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void ghes_sei_remove(struct ghes *ghes)
>> +{
>> +	mutex_lock(&ghes_list_mutex);
>> +	list_del_rcu(&ghes->list);
>> +	mutex_unlock(&ghes_list_mutex);
>> +	synchronize_rcu();
>> +}
>> +#else /* CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_SEI */
>> +static inline void ghes_sei_add(struct ghes *ghes) { }
>> +static inline void ghes_sei_remove(struct ghes *ghes) { }
>> +#endif /* CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_SEI */
>> +
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_ACPI_APEI_NMI
>>  /*
> 
>> index 8feb0c8..9ba59e2 100644
>> --- a/include/acpi/ghes.h
>> +++ b/include/acpi/ghes.h
>> @@ -120,5 +120,6 @@ static inline void *acpi_hest_get_next(struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata)
>>  	     section = acpi_hest_get_next(section))
>>  
>>  int ghes_notify_sea(void);
>> +int ghes_notify_sei(void);
> 
> It would be nice to have a stub definition when !CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_SEI,
> e.g.
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_SEI
> int ghes_notify_sei(void);
> #else
> static in int ghes_notify_sei(void) { return -ENOENT; }
> #endif
> 
> ... as callers could simply call this without additional checks.
> 
> As a cleanup, similar would be nice for ghes_notify_sea() with
> CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_SEA.

I think your suggestion is better, I will do the cleanup include the ghes_notify_sea().
thanks again.

> 
> Thanks,
> Mark.
> 
> .
>