linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Add results of early memtest to /proc/meminfo

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20230317165637.6be5414a3eb05d751da7d19f@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 17 Mar 2023 16:56:37 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Tomáš Mudruňka <tomas.mudrunka@...il.com>
Cc:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add results of early memtest to /proc/meminfo

On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 20:30:01 +0100 Tomáš Mudruňka <tomas.mudrunka@...il.com> wrote:

> Currently the memtest results were only presented in dmesg.
> This adds /proc/meminfo entry which can be easily used by scripts.
> 

/proc/meminfo is documented in Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst,
please.

meminfo is rather top-level and important.  Is this data sufficiently
important to justify a place there?

Please describe the value.  The use-case(s).  Why would people want
this?

> --- a/fs/proc/meminfo.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/meminfo.c
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
>  #include <linux/hugetlb.h>
>  #include <linux/mman.h>
>  #include <linux/mmzone.h>
> +#include <linux/memblock.h>
>  #include <linux/proc_fs.h>
>  #include <linux/percpu.h>
>  #include <linux/seq_file.h>
> @@ -131,6 +132,18 @@ static int meminfo_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void
> *v)
>   show_val_kb(m, "VmallocChunk:   ", 0ul);
>   show_val_kb(m, "Percpu:         ", pcpu_nr_pages());
> 
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMTEST
> + /* Only show 0 Bad memory when test was actually run.
> + * Make sure bad regions smaller than 1kB are not reported as 0.
> + * That way when 0 is reported we can be sure there actually was
> successful test */

Comment layout is unconventional.

> + if (early_memtest_done)
> + seq_printf(m, "EarlyMemtestBad:   %5lu kB\n",
> + (unsigned long) (
> + ((early_memtest_bad_size>0) && (early_memtest_bad_size>>10 <= 0))
> + ? 1
> + : early_memtest_bad_size>>10));

Coding style is unconventional (white spaces).

I expect this code would look much cleaner if some temporaries were used.

	if (early_memtest_done) {
		unsigned long size = 1;
		long sz =  early_memtest_bad_size  >> 10;

		if (early_memtest_bad_size > 0 && sz <= 0)
			size = sz;
		seq_printf(m, "EarlyMemtestBad:   %5lu kB\n", size)
	}

(or something like that, I didn't try hard)

I don't understand this logic anyway.  Why not just print the value of
early_memtest_bad_size>>10 and be done with it.


> +extern int early_memtest_done; /* How many memtest passes were done? */

The name implies a bool, but the comment says otherwise.

> start, phys_addr_t end)
>   memtest(pattern, this_start, this_end - this_start);
>   }
>   }
> + early_memtest_done++;

It's a counter, but it's used as a boolean.  Why not make it bool, and do

	early_memtest_done = true;

here?

Also, your email client is replacing tabs with spaces.