linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] edac,ghes,cper: Add device to Memory Error Record

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: <1c4594ad-7477-9597-a627-21217f66a4f9@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Dec 2021 21:32:27 +0800
From:   Shuai Xue <xueshuai@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc:     mchehab@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de, james.morse@....com,
        rric@...nel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, zhangliguang@...ux.alibaba.com,
        zhuo.song@...ux.alibaba.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] edac,ghes,cper: Add device to Memory Error Record

Hi, Tony,

> This looks OK (same as code in drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c in the
> cper_mem_err_location() function. But that makes me wonder why there
> is near duplication of code in ghes_edac.c?
May it is a legacy issue.


> The cper.c code seems to be written defensively using scnprintf()
> instead of sprintf().  Could ghes_edac share the same code?
I think so, ghes_edac_report_mem_error in ghes_edac.c is Long Method
and have Duplicated Code with cper_mem_err_location,
cper_dimm_err_location, and cper_mem_err_type_str in
drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c.

I will send a new patch to rework ghes_edac_report_mem_error.

Cheers
Shuai

On 2021/12/1 AM3:13, Luck, Tony wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 09:16:48PM +0800, Shuai Xue wrote:
>> If Bit 7 of Validation Bits is valid, the device number of the memory
>> associated with errors should be reported to Memory Error Record.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shuai Xue <xueshuai@...ux.alibaba.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c | 2 ++
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c b/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c
>> index a918ca93e4f7..cf98b270d6f7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c
>> +++ b/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c
>> @@ -378,6 +378,8 @@ void ghes_edac_report_mem_error(int sev, struct cper_sec_mem_err *mem_err)
>>  	if (mem_err->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_BANK_ADDRESS)
>>  		p += sprintf(p, "bank_address:%d ",
>>  			     mem_err->bank & CPER_MEM_BANK_ADDRESS_MASK);
>> +	if (mem_err->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_DEVICE)
>> +		p += sprintf(p, "device:%d ", mem_err->device);
>>  	if (mem_err->validation_bits & (CPER_MEM_VALID_ROW | CPER_MEM_VALID_ROW_EXT)) {
>>  		u32 row = mem_err->row;
>>  
> 
> This looks OK (same as code in drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c in the
> cper_mem_err_location() function. But that makes me wonder why there
> is near duplication of code in ghes_edac.c?
> 
> The cper.c code seems to be written defensively using scnprintf()
> instead of sprintf().  Could ghes_edac share the same code?
> 
> -Tony
>