linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 03/24] EDAC, ghes: Remove pvt->detail

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:   Wed, 7 Aug 2019 09:00:53 +0000
From:   Robert Richter <rrichter@...vell.com>
To:     James Morse <james.morse@....com>
CC:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        "linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/24] EDAC, ghes: Remove pvt->detail_location string

On 02.08.19 18:04:46, James Morse wrote:
> On 24/06/2019 16:08, Robert Richter wrote:
> > The detail_location[] string in struct ghes_edac_pvt is complete
> > useless and data is just copied around. Put everything into
> > e->other_detail from the beginning.

I am updating the description here to clarify it is only the internal
buffer that is removed. The other_detail[] string still provides a
decoded information of the apei error record.

> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Robert Richter <rrichter@...vell.com>
> > ---
> 
> 
> > diff --git a/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c b/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c
> > index d095d98d6a8d..049de73c3bad 100644
> > --- a/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c
> > +++ b/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c
> > @@ -21,8 +21,7 @@ struct ghes_edac_pvt {
> >  	struct mem_ctl_info *mci;
> >  
> >  	/* Buffers for the error handling routine */
> > -	char detail_location[240];
> > -	char other_detail[160];
> > +	char other_detail[400];
> >  	char msg[80];
> >  };
> >  
> > @@ -224,13 +223,14 @@ void ghes_edac_report_mem_error(int sev, struct cper_sec_mem_err *mem_err)
> >  	e->error_count = 1;
> >  	e->grain = 1;
> >  	strcpy(e->label, "unknown label");
> > -	e->msg = pvt->msg;
> > -	e->other_detail = pvt->other_detail;
> >  	e->top_layer = -1;
> >  	e->mid_layer = -1;
> >  	e->low_layer = -1;
> > -	*pvt->other_detail = '\0';
> > +	e->msg = pvt->msg;
> > +	e->other_detail = pvt->other_detail;
> > +
> >  	*pvt->msg = '\0';
> > +	*pvt->other_detail = '\0';

There are not code changes here, just a reordering for better
comparization with its counterpart in edac_mc.c. However, I am
removing this hunk here.

> >  
> >  	switch (sev) {
> >  	case GHES_SEV_CORRECTED:
> > @@ -361,6 +361,8 @@ void ghes_edac_report_mem_error(int sev, struct cper_sec_mem_err *mem_err)
> >  
> >  	/* All other fields are mapped on e->other_detail */
> >  	p = pvt->other_detail;
> > +	p += snprintf(p, sizeof(pvt->other_detail),
> > +		"APEI location: %s ", e->location);
> >  	if (mem_err->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_ERROR_STATUS) {
> >  		u64 status = mem_err->error_status;
> >  
> > @@ -443,12 +445,10 @@ void ghes_edac_report_mem_error(int sev, struct cper_sec_mem_err *mem_err)
> >  	grain_bits = fls_long(e->grain - 1);
> >  
> >  	/* Generate the trace event */
> > -	snprintf(pvt->detail_location, sizeof(pvt->detail_location),
> > -		 "APEI location: %s %s", e->location, e->other_detail);
> >  	trace_mc_event(type, e->msg, e->label, e->error_count,
> >  		       mci->mc_idx, e->top_layer, e->mid_layer, e->low_layer,
> >  		       (e->page_frame_number << PAGE_SHIFT) | e->offset_in_page,
> > -		       grain_bits, e->syndrome, pvt->detail_location);
> > +		       grain_bits, e->syndrome, e->other_detail);
> >  
> >  	edac_raw_mc_handle_error(type, mci, e);
> >  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ghes_lock, flags);
> 
> After a game of spot-the-difference: you added a newline.
> Reviewed-by: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
> 
> Previously here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-edac/7017c91e-8923-c8d2-26ca-875328ab855a@arm.com/
> 
> Please pick up tags when posting a new version.

Let me know what you mean with this, I would like to ease review for
you. I tried to describe changes for v2 as detailed as possible.

Thank you.

-Robert