linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 01/16] x86/mce: Define mce_setup() helpers for common and per-CPU fields

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: <b5ecdc56-11c6-47b0-9cc1-87d384b01d0f@amd.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 09:50:58 -0400
From: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: yazen.ghannam@....com, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tony.luck@...el.com, x86@...nel.org,
 Avadhut.Naik@....com, John.Allen@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/16] x86/mce: Define mce_setup() helpers for common
 and per-CPU fields



On 4/16/24 06:02, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 10:13:44AM -0500, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c
>> index b5cc557cfc37..7a857b33f515 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c
>> @@ -117,20 +117,32 @@ static struct irq_work mce_irq_work;
>>    */
>>   BLOCKING_NOTIFIER_HEAD(x86_mce_decoder_chain);
>>   
>> -/* Do initial initialization of a struct mce */
>> -void mce_setup(struct mce *m)
>> +void mce_setup_common(struct mce *m)
> 
> Since we're touching this...
> 
> mce_setup() is a perfectly wrong name for what it does. So let's clean
> it up. Diff ontop below.
> 
> * mce_prep_record() - the name says what the function does.
> 
> * mce_prep_record_per_cpu() - "per_cpu" as this is a common kernel
> concept and we do use per_cpu data in there.
> 
> Please do this in two patches:
> 
> - the first one renames mce_setup() only without adding the additional
>    functionality
> 
> - the second one does the split
> 
> Thx.
>

Okay, will do.

Should I send another revision of this entire set? Or should I split out
the mce_setup() patches?

Thanks,
Yazen