linux-kernel - [PATCH 1/3] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Classify error scenarios correctly

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]

Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 10:23:47 -0700
From: Jithu Joseph <jithu.joseph@...el.com>
To: ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com,
	hdegoede@...hat.com,
	markgross@...nel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
	jithu.joseph@...el.com,
	ashok.raj@...el.com,
	tony.luck@...el.com,
	rostedt@...dmis.org,
	sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...el.com,
	ravi.v.shankar@...el.com,
	patches@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Classify error scenarios correctly

Based on inputs from hardware architects, only "scan signature failures"
should be treated as actual hardware/cpu failure.

Current driver, in addition, classifies "scan controller error" scenario
too as a hardware/cpu failure. Modify the driver to classify this situation
with a more appropriate "untested" status instead of "fail" status.

Signed-off-by: Jithu Joseph <jithu.joseph@...el.com>
Reviewed-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Reviewed-by: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
---
 drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/runtest.c | 27 +++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/runtest.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/runtest.c
index 95b4b71fab53..282e4bfe30da 100644
--- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/runtest.c
+++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/runtest.c
@@ -69,6 +69,19 @@ static const char * const scan_test_status[] = {
 
 static void message_not_tested(struct device *dev, int cpu, union ifs_status status)
 {
+	struct ifs_data *ifsd = ifs_get_data(dev);
+
+	/*
+	 * control_error is set when the microcode runs into a problem
+	 * loading the image from the reserved BIOS memory, or it has
+	 * been corrupted. Reloading the image may fix this issue.
+	 */
+	if (status.control_error) {
+		dev_warn(dev, "CPU(s) %*pbl: Scan controller error. Batch: %02x version: 0x%x\n",
+			 cpumask_pr_args(cpu_smt_mask(cpu)), ifsd->cur_batch, ifsd->loaded_version);
+		return;
+	}
+
 	if (status.error_code < ARRAY_SIZE(scan_test_status)) {
 		dev_info(dev, "CPU(s) %*pbl: SCAN operation did not start. %s\n",
 			 cpumask_pr_args(cpu_smt_mask(cpu)),
@@ -90,16 +103,6 @@ static void message_fail(struct device *dev, int cpu, union ifs_status status)
 {
 	struct ifs_data *ifsd = ifs_get_data(dev);
 
-	/*
-	 * control_error is set when the microcode runs into a problem
-	 * loading the image from the reserved BIOS memory, or it has
-	 * been corrupted. Reloading the image may fix this issue.
-	 */
-	if (status.control_error) {
-		dev_err(dev, "CPU(s) %*pbl: could not execute from loaded scan image. Batch: %02x version: 0x%x\n",
-			cpumask_pr_args(cpu_smt_mask(cpu)), ifsd->cur_batch, ifsd->loaded_version);
-	}
-
 	/*
 	 * signature_error is set when the output from the scan chains does not
 	 * match the expected signature. This might be a transient problem (e.g.
@@ -285,10 +288,10 @@ static void ifs_test_core(int cpu, struct device *dev)
 	/* Update status for this core */
 	ifsd->scan_details = status.data;
 
-	if (status.control_error || status.signature_error) {
+	if (status.signature_error) {
 		ifsd->status = SCAN_TEST_FAIL;
 		message_fail(dev, cpu, status);
-	} else if (status.error_code) {
+	} else if (status.control_error || status.error_code) {
 		ifsd->status = SCAN_NOT_TESTED;
 		message_not_tested(dev, cpu, status);
 	} else {
-- 
2.25.1