linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] firmware/efi: Process CXL Component Events

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: <652f45e29915c_2bb07d2949b@iweiny-mobl.notmuch>
Date:   Tue, 17 Oct 2023 19:41:38 -0700
From:   Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To:     Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
        Smita Koralahalli <Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@....com>
CC:     Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        "Ard Biesheuvel" <ardb@...nel.org>, <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] firmware/efi: Process CXL Component Events

Ira Weiny wrote:
> 

[snip]

> ---
> RFC comments:
> I'm still not sure if the 'CXL Component Event Log' portion of the CPER
> record includes the UUID from the CXL Common Event Record Format.
> 
> The 2.10 version of the UEFI spec says:
> 
> "For the CXL Component Event Log: Refer to the Common Event Record field
> (Offset 16) of the Events Record Format for each CXL component."
> 
> This implies that the first 16 bytes (the UUID) is not included.  It
> would be nice if the UUID were included there as a copy of what would
> normally be in the CXL event log.  If so the Section Type GUID could be
> used solely to match for a CXL record and ignored in the CXL code.
> 
> For now convert the GUID to UUID and pass to the notifier users.

Smita,

Dan and I were discussing the processing of these GUIDs vs the UUIDs offline.

> 
> Smita, Another idea I had was to add your cper_print_comp_event()
> function to the dump here to capture that CPER specific data in the EFI
> log.
> ---
>  drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c     | 16 ++++++++++++++
>  drivers/firmware/efi/cper_cxl.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/firmware/efi/cper_cxl.h | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  include/linux/efi.h             | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  4 files changed, 133 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c
> index 35c37f667781..af2c59f5e21d 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c
> @@ -607,6 +607,22 @@ cper_estatus_print_section(const char *pfx, struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata
>  			cper_print_prot_err(newpfx, prot_err);
>  		else
>  			goto err_section_too_small;
> +	} else if (guid_equal(sec_type, &gen_media_event_guid) ||
> +		   guid_equal(sec_type, &dram_event_guid) ||
> +		   guid_equal(sec_type, &mem_mod_event_guid)) {
> +		struct cper_cxl_event_rec *rec = acpi_hest_get_payload(gdata);
> +

Here we could separate out the comparisons and use a token for the event types
rather than passing the guid through to be converted into a uuid...

> +		printk("%ssection type: CXL Event\n", newpfx);
> +
> +		if (rec->hdr.length <= sizeof(rec->hdr))
> +			goto err_section_too_small;
> +
> +		if (rec->hdr.length > sizeof(*rec)) {
> +			pr_err(FW_WARN "error section length is too big\n");
> +			return;
> +		}
> +
> +		cper_post_cxl_event(newpfx, sec_type, rec);
>  	} else {
>  		const void *err = acpi_hest_get_payload(gdata);
>  
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper_cxl.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper_cxl.c
> index a55771b99a97..9b1a64ed542e 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper_cxl.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper_cxl.c
> @@ -187,3 +187,42 @@ void cper_print_prot_err(const char *pfx, const struct cper_sec_prot_err *prot_e
>  			       sizeof(cxl_ras->header_log), 0);
>  	}
>  }
> +
> +/* CXL CPER notifier chain */
> +static BLOCKING_NOTIFIER_HEAD(cxl_cper_chain_head);
> +
> +void cper_post_cxl_event(const char *pfx, guid_t *guid, struct cper_cxl_event_rec *rec)
> +{
> +	struct cxl_cper_notifier_data nd = {
> +		.rec = rec,
> +	};
> +	char guid_str[UUID_STRING_LEN + 1]; /* + trailing NULL */
> +
> +	if (!(rec->hdr.validation_bits & CPER_CXL_COMP_EVENT_LOG_VALID)) {
> +		pr_err(FW_WARN "cxl event no Compoent Event Log present\n");
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	snprintf(guid_str, UUID_STRING_LEN + 1, "%pU", guid);
> +	if (uuid_parse(guid_str, &nd.uuid))
> +		pr_err(FW_WARN "cxl event uuid conversion failed\n");

Thus this conversion is unnecessary.

> +
> +	pr_info("%s cxl event guid %pU, uuid %pU\n", pfx, guid, &nd.uuid);
> +
> +	if (blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cxl_cper_chain_head, 0, (void *)&nd)
> +			== NOTIFY_BAD)
> +		pr_err(FW_WARN "cxl event notifier chain failed\n");
> +}
> +

But this will mean that the trace events will have no uuid printed (probably
not a big deal as the trace point itself has that information).

(This would change the 2nd patch as it would no longer be getting a uuid.)

Thoughts?

Ira


[snip]