linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] cxl/acpi.c: Add buggy BIOS hint for CXL ACPI lookup failure

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: <94bce3e14a32d017c0f8acb6726a3484fda01cfd.camel@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2024 21:22:55 -0700
From: PJ Waskiewicz <ppwaskie@...nel.org>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>, Lukas Wunner
	 <lukas@...ner.de>, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] cxl/acpi.c: Add buggy BIOS hint for CXL ACPI lookup
 failure

On Mon, 2024-04-08 at 14:32 -0700, PJ Waskiewicz wrote:
> > 
> > Turns out that straightforward message is aleady a driver message,
> > but
> > it gets skipped in this case. So, I am thinking of cleanup /
> > clarification along the following lines:
> > 
> > 1/ Lean on the existing cxl_get_chbs() validation paths to report
> > on
> > errors
> > 
> > 2/ Include the device-name rather than the UID since if UID is
> > unreliable it does not help you communicate with your BIOS vendor.
> > I.e.
> > give a breadcrumb for the BIOS engineer to match the AML device
> > name
> > with the CEDT content.
> > 
> > 3/ Do not fail driver load on a single host-bridge parsing failure
> > 
> > 4/ These are all cxl_acpi driver init events, so consistently use
> > the
> > ACPI0017 device, and the cxl_acpi driver, as the originator of the
> > error
> > message.
> > 
> > Would this clarification have saved you time with the debug?

I guess I should have asked: would you like me to pull this patch in
and give it a test on a known broken host?  I'm happy to do it.

-PJ