linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] cper, apei, mce: Pass x86 CPER through the MCA handling chain

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: <982e0243-b144-f8b6-d69d-45af94ed8bb9@amd.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 Nov 2020 13:05:20 -0600
From:   Smita Koralahalli Channabasappa <skoralah@....com>
To:     Punit Agrawal <punit1.agrawal@...hiba.co.jp>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Smita Koralahalli <Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@....com>,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] cper, apei, mce: Pass x86 CPER through the MCA
 handling chain

On 11/8/20 7:18 PM, Punit Agrawal wrote:

> Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> writes:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 02:36:46PM +0900, Punit Agrawal wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper-x86.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper-x86.c
>>>> index 2531de49f56c..438ed9eff6d0 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper-x86.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper-x86.c
>>>> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
>>>>   // Copyright (C) 2018, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
>>>>   
>>>>   #include <linux/cper.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
>>> Did you mean to include <asm/acpi.h>?
>> Why?
> Because arch_apei_report_x86_error() used in the patch is defined
> there. The indirect include works but pulls in additional definitions
> not needed by the patch.
>
> Do you prefer the more generic include?

Okay.

I agree, it's generally a good practice to avoid pulling up additional
definitions. I had this when I made the declaration in generic header
file and may be I did not consider it changing initially as my build
didn't break after moving the declaration from generic header to arch
specific header file.

I will take care henceforth and make the changes as required.

Thanks,