linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] platform/x86: intel_pmc_core: Allow to dump debug registers on S0ix failure

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]

Date:   Mon, 8 Apr 2019 20:02:25 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Rajat Jain <rajatja@...gle.com>
Cc:     Rajneesh Bhardwaj <rajneesh.bhardwaj@...el.com>,
        Vishwanath Somayaji <vishwanath.somayaji@...el.com>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Wysocki@...gle.com, Rafael J <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
        furquan@...gle.com, evgreen@...gle.com,
        Rajat Jain <rajatxjain@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] platform/x86: intel_pmc_core: Allow to dump debug
 registers on S0ix failure

On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 11:36 PM Rajat Jain <rajatja@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Add a module parameter which when enabled, will check on resume, if the
> last S0ix attempt was successful. If not, the driver would warn and provide
> helpful debug information (which gets latched during the failed suspend
> attempt) to debug the S0ix failure.
>
> This information is very useful to debug S0ix failures. Specially since
> the latched debug information will be lost (over-written) if the system
> attempts to go into runtime (or imminent) S0ix again after that failed
> suspend attempt.

> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> +
> +static bool warn_on_s0ix_failures;
> +module_param(warn_on_s0ix_failures, bool, 0644);
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(warn_on_s0ix_failures, "Check and warn for S0ix failures");
> +
> +static int pmc_core_suspend(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +       struct pmc_dev *pmcdev = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> +
> +       /* Save PC10 and S0ix residency for checking later */

> +       if (warn_on_s0ix_failures && !pm_suspend_via_firmware() &&
> +           !rdmsrl_safe(MSR_PKG_C10_RESIDENCY, &pmcdev->pc10_counter) &&
> +           !pmc_core_dev_state_get(pmcdev, &pmcdev->s0ix_counter))
> +               pmcdev->check_counters = true;

Perhaps something like

pmcdev->check_counters = false;
/* User doesn't want to be warned */
if (!warn_on...)
 return 0;
/* We do suspend via firmware */
if (...)
 return 0;
...

?

> +       else
> +               pmcdev->check_counters = false;
> +
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool pc10_failed(struct pmc_dev *pmcdev)

To be or not to be? :-)
Perhaps names of the functions should be

pmc_code_is_pc10_failed()

and so on

> +{
> +       u64 pc10_counter;
> +
> +       if (!rdmsrl_safe(MSR_PKG_C10_RESIDENCY, &pc10_counter) &&
> +           pc10_counter == pmcdev->pc10_counter)
> +               return true;

> +       else

Redundant.

> +               return false;
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool s0ix_failed(struct pmc_dev *pmcdev)
> +{
> +       u64 s0ix_counter;
> +
> +       if (!pmc_core_dev_state_get(pmcdev, &s0ix_counter) &&
> +           s0ix_counter == pmcdev->s0ix_counter)
> +               return true;

> +       else

Ditto.

> +               return false;
> +}
> +
> +static int pmc_core_resume(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +       struct pmc_dev *pmcdev = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> +
> +       if (!pmcdev->check_counters)
> +               return 0;
> +
> +       if (pc10_failed(pmcdev)) {
> +               dev_info(dev, "PC10 entry had failed (PC10 cnt=0x%llx)\n",
> +                        pmcdev->pc10_counter);
> +       } else if (s0ix_failed(pmcdev)) {
> +
> +               const struct pmc_bit_map **maps = pmcdev->map->slps0_dbg_maps;
> +               const struct pmc_bit_map *map;
> +               int offset = pmcdev->map->slps0_dbg_offset;
> +               u32 data;
> +
> +               dev_warn(dev, "S0ix entry had failed (S0ix cnt=%llu)\n",
> +                        pmcdev->s0ix_counter);
> +               while (*maps) {
> +                       map = *maps;
> +                       data = pmc_core_reg_read(pmcdev, offset);
> +                       offset += 4;
> +                       while (map->name) {
> +                               dev_warn(dev, "SLP_S0_DBG: %-32s\tState: %s\n",
> +                                        map->name,
> +                                        data & map->bit_mask ? "Yes" : "No");
> +                               ++map;
> +                       }
> +                       ++maps;
> +               }

Can't we utilize existing print helpers?

> +       }
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
> +#endif

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko