linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] cxl: add a firmware update mechanism using the sysfs firmware loader

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: <646c34278f161_33fb3294ce@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch>
Date:   Mon, 22 May 2023 20:33:59 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     "Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        "Schofield, Alison" <alison.schofield@...el.com>
CC:     "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        "linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org" <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "Weight, Russell H" <russell.h.weight@...el.com>,
        "bwidawsk@...nel.org" <bwidawsk@...nel.org>,
        "dave@...olabs.net" <dave@...olabs.net>,
        "Weiny, Ira" <ira.weiny@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] cxl: add a firmware update mechanism using the sysfs
 firmware loader

Verma, Vishal L wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 19:58 -0700, Alison Schofield wrote:
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/cxl/cxlmem.h b/drivers/cxl/cxlmem.h
> > > index 8c3302fc7738..0ecee5b558f4 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/cxl/cxlmem.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/cxl/cxlmem.h
> > 
> > snip
> > 
> > > + * Get Firmware Info
> > > + * CXL rev 3.0 section 8.2.9.3.1; Table 8-56
> > > + */
> > > +struct cxl_mbox_get_fw_info {
> > > +       u8 num_slots;
> > > +       u8 slot_info;
> > > +       u8 activation_cap;
> > > +       u8 reserved[13];
> > > +       char slot_1_revision[0x10];
> > > +       char slot_2_revision[0x10];
> > > +       char slot_3_revision[0x10];
> > > +       char slot_4_revision[0x10];
> > 
> > The practice here is to use decimals [16]
> 
> I looked around, and see cxl_identify, cxl_event_mem_module, and
> cxl_event_dram all have a few hex ones thrown in each. So I looked to
> the spec to see if there was any consistency there, and unfortunately
> it isn't either. The spec does say 'Length in bytes' 16 for these fw
> revision fields though, so I think it makes sense changing these to
> decimal..

I had asked for decimal in the event and poison bits, but yes, we are not
consistent. Those ones stand out because even the spec has them as
decimal. Not a deal breaker either way.