linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] ACPI: APEI: Add support to notify the vendor specific HW errors

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: <4967c0e6-b264-a13a-28c7-5ca497442823@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Mar 2020 17:29:32 +0000
From:   James Morse <james.morse@....com>
To:     Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@...wei.com>
Cc:     linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rjw@...ysocki.net,
        helgaas@...nel.org, lenb@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de,
        tony.luck@...el.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        zhangliguang@...ux.alibaba.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
        linuxarm@...wei.com, jonathan.cameron@...wei.com,
        tanxiaofei@...wei.com, yangyicong@...ilicon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] ACPI: APEI: Add support to notify the vendor
 specific HW errors

Hi Shiju,

On 07/02/2020 10:31, Shiju Jose wrote:
> Presently APEI does not support reporting the vendor specific
> HW errors, received in the vendor defined table entries, to the
> vendor drivers for any recovery.
> 
> This patch adds the support to register and unregister the
> error handling function for the vendor specific HW errors and
> notify the registered kernel driver.

Is it possible to use the kernel's existing atomic_notifier_chain_register() API for this?

The one thing that can't be done in the same way is the GUID filtering in ghes.c. Each
driver would need to check if the call matched a GUID they knew about, and return
NOTIFY_DONE if they "don't care".

I think this patch would be a lot smaller if it was tweaked to be able to use the existing
API. If there is a reason not to use it, it would be good to know what it is.


> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
> index 103acbb..69e18d7 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
> @@ -490,6 +490,109 @@ static void ghes_handle_aer(struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata)

> +/**
> + * ghes_unregister_event_handler - unregister the previously
> + * registered event handling function.
> + * @sec_type: sec_type of the corresponding CPER.
> + * @data: driver specific data to distinguish devices.
> + */
> +void ghes_unregister_event_handler(guid_t sec_type, void *data)
> +{
> +	struct ghes_event_notify *event_notify;
> +	bool found = false;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&ghes_event_notify_mutex);
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	list_for_each_entry_rcu(event_notify,
> +				&ghes_event_handler_list, list) {
> +		if (guid_equal(&event_notify->sec_type, &sec_type)) {

> +			if (data != event_notify->data)

It looks like you need multiple drivers to handle the same GUID because of multiple root
ports. Can't the handler lookup the right device?


> +				continue;
> +			list_del_rcu(&event_notify->list);
> +			found = true;
> +			break;
> +		}
> +	}
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +	mutex_unlock(&ghes_event_notify_mutex);
> +
> +	if (!found) {
> +		pr_err("Tried to unregister a GHES event handler that has not been registered\n");
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	synchronize_rcu();
> +	kfree(event_notify);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ghes_unregister_event_handler);

> @@ -525,11 +628,14 @@ static void ghes_do_proc(struct ghes *ghes,
>  
>  			log_arm_hw_error(err);
>  		} else {
> -			void *err = acpi_hest_get_payload(gdata);
> -
> -			log_non_standard_event(sec_type, fru_id, fru_text,
> -					       sec_sev, err,
> -					       gdata->error_data_length);
> +			if (!ghes_handle_non_standard_event(sec_type, gdata,
> +							    sev)) {
> +				void *err = acpi_hest_get_payload(gdata);
> +
> +				log_non_standard_event(sec_type, fru_id,
> +						       fru_text, sec_sev, err,
> +						       gdata->error_data_length);
> +			}

So, a side effect of the kernel handling these is they no longer get logged out of trace
points?

I guess the driver the claims this logs some more accurate information. Are there expected
to be any user-space programs doing something useful with B2889FC9... today?


Thanks,

James