linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ACPI: APEI: EINJ: warn on invalid argument when explicitly indicated by platform

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: <91796ce2-2f63-4b07-3e44-dc2a2a98615e@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Mar 2023 10:25:12 +0800
From:   Shuai Xue <xueshuai@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc:     "baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com" <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        "benjamin.cheatham@....com" <benjamin.cheatham@....com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "james.morse@....com" <james.morse@....com>,
        "jaylu102@....com" <jaylu102@....com>,
        "lenb@...nel.org" <lenb@...nel.org>,
        "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "rafael@...nel.org" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        "zhuo.song@...ux.alibaba.com" <zhuo.song@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: APEI: EINJ: warn on invalid argument when
 explicitly indicated by platform



On 2023/3/18 AM5:24, Luck, Tony wrote:
> -	if (val != EINJ_STATUS_SUCCESS)
> +	if (val == EINJ_STATUS_FAIL)
>  		return -EBUSY;
> +	else if (val == EINJ_STATUS_INVAL)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> 
> The ACPI Specification is really vague here. Documented error codes are
> 
> 0 = Success (Linux #define EINJ_STATUS_SUCCESS)
> 1 = Unknown failure (Linux #define EINJ_STATUS_FAIL)
> 2 = Invalid Access (Linux #define EINJ_STATUS_INVAL)

Absolutely right.

> 
> I don't see how reporting -EBUSY for the "Unknown Failure" case is
> actually better.

Tony, did you misunderstand this patch?

The original code report -EBUSY for both "Unknown Failure" and
"Invalid Access" cases.

This patch intends to report -EINVAL for "Invalid Access" case
and keeps reporting -EBUSY for "Unknown Failure" case unchanged.
Although -EBUSY for "Unknown Failure" case is not a good choice.
Will -EIO for "Unknown failure" case be better?

By the way, do you think -EIO for time out case is suitable.

	for (;;) {
		rc = apei_exec_run(&ctx, ACPI_EINJ_CHECK_BUSY_STATUS);
		if (rc)
			return rc;
		val = apei_exec_ctx_get_output(&ctx);
		if (!(val & EINJ_OP_BUSY))
			break;
		if (einj_timedout(&timeout))
			return -EIO;

For example, the OSPM will may warn:

    Firmware does not respond in time.

And a message is printed on the console:
    echo: write error: Input/output error

Will -EBUSY or -ETIME for timeout be better?

> 
> -Tony

Thank you for comments.

Best Regards.
Shuai