linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] Fix CPER issues related to UEFI 2.9A Errata

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, 21 Jun 2024 09:45:16 +0200
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>, 
	Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>, Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@...wei.com>, 
	linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] Fix CPER issues related to UEFI 2.9A Errata

On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 at 20:01, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
<mchehab+huawei@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> The UEFI 2.9A errata makes clear how ARM processor type encoding should
> be done: it is meant to be equal to Generic processor, using a bitmask.
>
> The current code assumes, for both generic and ARM processor types
> that this is an integer, which is an incorrect assumption.
>
> Fix it. While here, also fix a compilation issue when using W=1.
>
> After the change, Kernel will properly decode receiving two errors at the same
> message, as defined at UEFI spec:
>
> [   75.282430] Memory failure: 0x5cdfd: recovery action for free buddy page: Recovered
> [   94.973081] {2}[Hardware Error]: Hardware error from APEI Generic Hardware Error Source: 1
> [   94.973770] {2}[Hardware Error]: event severity: recoverable
> [   94.974334] {2}[Hardware Error]:  Error 0, type: recoverable
> [   94.974962] {2}[Hardware Error]:   section_type: ARM processor error
> [   94.975586] {2}[Hardware Error]:   MIDR: 0x000000000000cd24
> [   94.976202] {2}[Hardware Error]:   Multiprocessor Affinity Register (MPIDR): 0x000000000000ab12
> [   94.977011] {2}[Hardware Error]:   error affinity level: 2
> [   94.977593] {2}[Hardware Error]:   running state: 0x1
> [   94.978135] {2}[Hardware Error]:   Power State Coordination Interface state: 4660
> [   94.978884] {2}[Hardware Error]:   Error info structure 0:
> [   94.979463] {2}[Hardware Error]:   num errors: 3
> [   94.979971] {2}[Hardware Error]:    first error captured
> [   94.980523] {2}[Hardware Error]:    propagated error captured
> [   94.981110] {2}[Hardware Error]:    overflow occurred, error info is incomplete
> [   94.981893] {2}[Hardware Error]:    error_type: 0x0006: cache error|TLB error
> [   94.982606] {2}[Hardware Error]:    error_info: 0x000000000091000f
> [   94.983249] {2}[Hardware Error]:     transaction type: Data Access
> [   94.983891] {2}[Hardware Error]:     cache error, operation type: Data write
> [   94.984559] {2}[Hardware Error]:     TLB error, operation type: Data write
> [   94.985215] {2}[Hardware Error]:     cache level: 2
> [   94.985749] {2}[Hardware Error]:     TLB level: 2
> [   94.986277] {2}[Hardware Error]:     processor context not corrupted
>
> And the error code is properly decoded according with table N.17 from UEFI 2.10
> spec:
>
>         [   94.981893] {2}[Hardware Error]:    error_type: 0x0006: cache error|TLB error
>
> Mauro Carvalho Chehab (3):
>   efi/cper: Adjust infopfx size to accept an extra space
>   efi/cper: Add a new helper function to print bitmasks
>   efi/cper: align ARM CPER type with UEFI 2.9A/2.10 specs
>

Hello Mauro,

How this is v4 different from the preceding 3 revisions that you sent
over the past 2 days?

I would expect an experienced maintainer like yourself to be familiar
with the common practice here: please leave some time between sending
revisions so people can take a look. And if there is a pressing need
to deviate from this rule, at least put an explanation in the commit
log of how the series differs from the preceding one.

Thanks,
Ard.