linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] EDAC: synopsys: Fix back to back snprintf() messages for CE/UE

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200227154400.GA18629@zn.tnic>
Date:   Thu, 27 Feb 2020 16:44:00 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Sherry Sun <sherry.sun@....com>,
        Manish Narani <manish.narani@...inx.com>
Cc:     james.morse@....com, mchehab@...nel.org, tony.luck@...el.com,
        rrichter@...vell.com, michal.simek@...inx.com,
        linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-imx@....com, frank.li@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] EDAC: synopsys: Fix back to back snprintf() messages
 for CE/UE

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 04:34:12PM +0800, Sherry Sun wrote:
> The current way which call snprintf() function two or three times to
> output message for CE/UE is incorrect, because it won't output all the
> message needed, instead it will only output the last message in
> snprintf(). So the simplest and most effective way to fix this problem
> is combining all the snprintf() message needed for CE/UE into one
> snprintf() function.
> 
> Fixes: b500b4a029d57 ("EDAC, synopsys: Add ECC support for ZynqMP DDR controller")
> Signed-off-by: Sherry Sun <sherry.sun@....com>
> Reviewed-by: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
> ---
> Changes in V2:
> - Separated this patch from the original patchset.
> - Change the subject to be more concise and clear.
> 
> ---
>  drivers/edac/synopsys_edac.c | 22 +++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/edac/synopsys_edac.c b/drivers/edac/synopsys_edac.c
> index 2d263382d797..880ffd833718 100644
> --- a/drivers/edac/synopsys_edac.c
> +++ b/drivers/edac/synopsys_edac.c
> @@ -479,20 +479,14 @@ static void handle_error(struct mem_ctl_info *mci, struct synps_ecc_status *p)
>  		pinf = &p->ceinfo;
>  		if (!priv->p_data->quirks) {
>  			snprintf(priv->message, SYNPS_EDAC_MSG_SIZE,
> -				 "DDR ECC error type:%s Row %d Bank %d Col %d ",
> -				  "CE", pinf->row, pinf->bank, pinf->col);
> -			snprintf(priv->message, SYNPS_EDAC_MSG_SIZE,
> -				 "Bit Position: %d Data: 0x%08x\n",
> +				 "DDR ECC error type:%s Row %d Bank %d Col %d Bit Position: %d Data: 0x%08x",
> +				 "CE", pinf->row, pinf->bank, pinf->col,
>  				 pinf->bitpos, pinf->data);
>  		} else {
>  			snprintf(priv->message, SYNPS_EDAC_MSG_SIZE,
> -				 "DDR ECC error type:%s Row %d Bank %d Col %d ",
> -				  "CE", pinf->row, pinf->bank, pinf->col);
> -			snprintf(priv->message, SYNPS_EDAC_MSG_SIZE,
> -				 "BankGroup Number %d Block Number %d ",
> -				 pinf->bankgrpnr, pinf->blknr);
> -			snprintf(priv->message, SYNPS_EDAC_MSG_SIZE,
> -				 "Bit Position: %d Data: 0x%08x\n",
> +				 "DDR ECC error type:%s Row %d Bank %d Col %d BankGroup Number %d Block Number %d Bit Position: %d Data: 0x%08x",
> +				 "CE", pinf->row, pinf->bank, pinf->col,
> +				 pinf->bankgrpnr, pinf->blknr,
>  				 pinf->bitpos, pinf->data);
>  		}
>  
> @@ -509,10 +503,8 @@ static void handle_error(struct mem_ctl_info *mci, struct synps_ecc_status *p)
>  				"UE", pinf->row, pinf->bank, pinf->col);
>  		} else {
>  			snprintf(priv->message, SYNPS_EDAC_MSG_SIZE,
> -				 "DDR ECC error type :%s Row %d Bank %d Col %d ",
> -				 "UE", pinf->row, pinf->bank, pinf->col);
> -			snprintf(priv->message, SYNPS_EDAC_MSG_SIZE,
> -				 "BankGroup Number %d Block Number %d",
> +				 "DDR ECC error type :%s Row %d Bank %d Col %d BankGroup Number %d Block Number %d",
> +				 "UE", pinf->row, pinf->bank, pinf->col,
>  				 pinf->bankgrpnr, pinf->blknr);
>  		}
>  
> -- 

I'm wondering how Manish did not see this in testing? CCed.

Anyway, queueing for urgent.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette