linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ACPI: utils: include UUID in

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: <CAJZ5v0h+kKwdntGPC5PP6N0ZRbRzLxuwcwTGm-PNBH6Z3mnETg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 May 2022 16:49:38 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Michael Niewöhner <linux@...ewoehner.de>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        "open list:ACPI" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: utils: include UUID in _DSM evaluation warning

On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 7:25 PM Michael Niewöhner <linux@...ewoehner.de> wrote:
>
> The _DSM evaluation warning in its current form is not very helpful, as
> it lacks any specific information:
>   ACPI: \: failed to evaluate _DSM (0x1001)
>
> Thus, include the UUID of the missing _DSM:
>   ACPI: \: failed to evaluate _DSM bf0212f2-... (0x1001)
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Niewöhner <linux@...ewoehner.de>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/utils.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/utils.c b/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> index d5cedffeeff9..7da993f5b6c3 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> @@ -681,7 +681,8 @@ acpi_evaluate_dsm(acpi_handle handle, const guid_t *guid,
> u64 rev, u64 func,
>
>         if (ret != AE_NOT_FOUND)
>                 acpi_handle_warn(handle,
> -                               "failed to evaluate _DSM (0x%x)\n", ret);
> +                               "failed to evaluate _DSM %pUb (0x%x)\n",
> +                               ret, guid);

Shouldn't this be "guid, ret" ?  Also, don't you want to print the
value of the GUID rather than the address of its location?

And I don't think you need to break the line here.

>
>         return NULL;
>  }
> --
> 2.34.1
>
>