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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6633db83a13f1_1384629429@dwillia2-mobl3.amr.corp.intel.com.notmuch>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 11:29:23 -0700
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: PJ Waskiewicz <ppwaskie@...nel.org>, Dan Williams
	<dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
CC: <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

PJ Waskiewicz wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-05-01 at 08:47 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > PJ Waskiewicz wrote:
> > > Buggy BIOS, that above value resolves to CX02.  In fact, it
> > > *should* be
> > > 49.  This is very much a bug in the ACPI arena.
> > 
> > Ok, so back to this patch in question, my concern with upgrading:
> > 
> >     dev_err(dev, "unable to retrieve _UID\n");
> > 
> > ...to say "potentially buggy BIOS", is that same charge could be
> > levied
> > against all of the dev_warn() and dev_err() instances in
> > drivers/cxl/acpi.c. So, it's not clear to me that cxl_acpi driver
> > failures need to be more explicit.
> > 
> > Otherwise, pretty much any ACPI hiccup message in the kernel would be
> > candidate for claiming "BIOS is busted".
> 
> I really do like your patch you proposed a few weeks back.  I'm happy
> to pull that and test it if you'd like to move forward on that instead.

All that one did is annotate all cxl_acpi driver error messages with
"FW_BUG", if that's useful then yeah that patch [1] can be considered.

[1]: http://lore.kernel.org/r/6614575a1c15c_2583ad29476@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch