linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 1/3] x86/MCE/AMD, EDAC/mce

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: <DM6PR12MB4388D2F749166A72974718C6E8269@DM6PR12MB4388.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 May 2021 16:41:25 +0000
From:   "Chatradhi, Naveen Krishna" <NaveenKrishna.Chatradhi@....com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:     "linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "mchehab@...nel.org" <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        "M K, Muralidhara" <Muralidhara.MK@....com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/3] x86/MCE/AMD, EDAC/mce_amd: Add new SMCA bank types.

[AMD Official Use Only]

Hi Boris

My apologies for delayed response. Thanks for your review comments, will submit a v2 shortly.

Regards,
Naveenk

-----Original Message-----
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> 
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 10:57 PM
To: Chatradhi, Naveen Krishna <NaveenKrishna.Chatradhi@....com>
Cc: linux-edac@...r.kernel.org; x86@...nel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; mingo@...hat.com; mchehab@...nel.org; M K, Muralidhara <Muralidhara.MK@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/MCE/AMD, EDAC/mce_amd: Add new SMCA bank types.

[CAUTION: External Email]

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 08:55:36PM +0530, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/amd.c 
> b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/amd.c index e486f96b3cb3..055f3a0acf5e 
> 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/amd.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/amd.c
> @@ -90,6 +90,7 @@ static struct smca_bank_name smca_names[] = {
>       [SMCA_CS_V2]    = { "coherent_slave",   "Coherent Slave" },
>       [SMCA_PIE]      = { "pie",              "Power, Interrupts, etc." },
>       [SMCA_UMC]      = { "umc",              "Unified Memory Controller" },
> +     [SMCA_UMC_V2]   = { "umc_v2",           "Unified Memory Controller" },

So this is called "umc_v2" but the other V2 FUs's strings are the same.
Why?
[naveenk:] There is a possibility for a heterogenous system with both the SMCA_UMC and SMCA_UMC_V2 variant of controllers to exist.
I will update the long name to describe accordingly.

Also, if you're going to repeat strings, you can just as well group all those which are the same this way:

        [ SMCA_UMC ... SMCA_UMC_V2 ]    = { "umc",              "Unified Memory Controller" },

and do that for all which have V1 and V2.

I mean, gcc is smart enough to do that behind the scenes for identical strings but you should do that in C too.
[naveenk:] thanks for the suggestion, I can do this for the other units.

> diff --git a/drivers/edac/mce_amd.c b/drivers/edac/mce_amd.c index 
> 5dd905a3f30c..5515fd9336b1 100644
> --- a/drivers/edac/mce_amd.c
> +++ b/drivers/edac/mce_amd.c
> @@ -323,6 +323,21 @@ static const char * const smca_umc_mce_desc[] = {
>       "AES SRAM ECC error",
>  };
>
> +static const char * const smca_umc2_mce_desc[] = {

Ok, gcc reuses the identical string pointers from smca_umc_mce_desc[] so we should be ok wrt duplication.

> +     "DRAM ECC error",
> +     "Data poison error",
> +     "SDP parity error",
> +     "Reserved",
> +     "Address/Command parity error",
> +     "Write data parity error",
> +     "DCQ SRAM ECC error",
> +     "Reserved",
> +     "Read data parity error",
> +     "Rdb SRAM ECC error",
> +     "RdRsp SRAM ECC error",
> +     "LM32 MP errors",
> +};

...


> +static const char * const smca_xgmipcs_mce_desc[] = {
> +     "DataLossErr",
> +     "TrainingErr",
> +     "FlowCtrlAckErr",
> +     "RxFifoUnderflowErr",
> +     "RxFifoOverflowErr",
> +     "CRCErr",
> +     "BERExceededErr",
> +     "TxVcidDataErr",
> +     "ReplayBufParityErr",
> +     "DataParityErr",
> +     "ReplayFifoOverflowErr",
> +     "ReplayFIfoUnderflowErr",
> +     "ElasticFifoOverflowErr",
> +     "DeskewErr",
> +     "FlowCtrlCRCErr",
> +     "DataStartupLimitErr",
> +     "FCInitTimeoutErr",
> +     "RecoveryTimeoutErr",
> +     "ReadySerialTimeoutErr",
> +     "ReadySerialAttemptErr",
> +     "RecoveryAttemptErr",
> +     "RecoveryRelockAttemptErr",
> +     "ReplayAttemptErr",
> +     "SyncHdrErr",
> +     "TxReplayTimeoutErr",
> +     "RxReplayTimeoutErr",
> +     "LinkSubTxTimeoutErr",
> +     "LinkSubRxTimeoutErr",
> +     "RxCMDPktErr",

What happened to those and why aren't they proper words like the other error descriptions?
[naveenk:] Will change these into proper words.

Thx.

--
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpeople.kernel.org%2Ftglx%2Fnotes-about-netiquette&amp;data=04%7C01%7CNaveenKrishna.Chatradhi%40amd.com%7C9159e5c1aebd47969c2508d914a20789%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637563508427766424%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=%2FiHUZDkg99NnGdDrOCK%2FQWsui2yA1dADCfG%2F4xFr%2B7I%3D&amp;reserved=0