linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] x86/mce, EDAC/mce_amd: Add support for new MCA

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: <20240626181805.GDZnxbXRJlCecNeDGW@fat_crate.local>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 20:18:05 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Naik, Avadhut" <avadnaik@....com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tony.luck@...el.com,
	rafael@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, lenb@...nel.org, mchehab@...nel.org,
	james.morse@....com, airlied@...il.com, yazen.ghannam@....com,
	john.allen@....com, Avadhut Naik <avadhut.naik@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] x86/mce, EDAC/mce_amd: Add support for new
 MCA_SYND{1,2} registers

On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 12:24:20PM -0500, Naik, Avadhut wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/26/2024 06:10, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 02:56:22PM -0500, Avadhut Naik wrote:
> >> AMD's Scalable MCA systems viz. Genoa will include two new registers:
> > 
> > "viz."?
> > 
> Right. Will mention Zen4 instead of Genoa.

I still don't know what "viz." means...

> Yes, I catch your drift. Will reword the commit message to explain that the
> new syndrome registers are going to be exported through the tracepoint
> in a dynamic array, as they are vendor-specific, so that usersapce error
> decoding tools can retrieve the supplemental error information within them.

Again, why?

Why is it important to have them in the tracepoint?

> >> Note: Checkpatch warnings/errors are ignored to maintain coding style.
> > 
> > This goes...
> > 
> >>
> >> [Yazen: Drop Yazen's Co-developed-by tag and moved SoB tag.]
> > 
> > Yes, you did but now your SOB chain is wrong:
> > 
> >> Signed-off-by: Avadhut Naik <avadhut.naik@....com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
> > 
> > This tells me Avadhut is the author, Yazen handled it and he's sending it to
> > me. But nope, he isn't. So it needs another Avadhut SOB underneath.
> > 
> > Audit all patches pls.
> > 
> Wasn't aware of this chronology. Thanks for this information!

Well, there's documentation for that which you should've read already, before
sending patches:

https://kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/development-process.html

and

https://kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html

especially.

> So, IIUC, the sequence for this patch should be as follows?
> 
> Signed-off-by: Avadhut Naik <avadhut.naik@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Avadhut Naik <avadhut.naik@....com>

Yes, now I leave it to you to explain why. Hint: it is in those docs above.

> 
> >> ---
> > 
> > ... right under those three "---" as such notes do not belong in the commit
> > message. Remember that for the future.
> > 
> Okay. Will move the note here.

Or remove it completely. checkpatch is crap - I know. No need to have it in
every patch.

> Had considered this. But struct mce_hw_err *err wouldn't really be used in
> mce_read_aux() in patch 1. Only struct mce m, which is already available, will
> be used.

So?

> Hence, deferred the change to this patch where usage of struct mce_hw_err *err
> is actually introduced in mce_read_aux().
> 
> Do you prefer having this change in patch 1 instead?

I prefer a patch to contain one logical and complete change only. Because this
makes review easier. You should try reviewing patches sometimes too and you'll
know.

> > So that vendor data layout - is that ABI too? Or are we free to shuffle the
> > fields around in the future or even remove some?
> > 
> > This all needs to be specified somewhere explicitly so that nothing relies on
> > that layout.
> > 
> > And I'm not sure that that's enough because when userspace tools start using
> > them, then they're practically an ABI so you can't change them even if you
> > wanted to.
> > 
> > So is libtraceevent or all the other libraries going to parse this as a blob
> > and it is always going to remain such?
> > 
> > But then the tools which interpret it need to know its layout and if it
> > changes, perhaps check kernel version which then becomes RealUgly(tm).
> > 
> > So you might just as well dump the separate fields one by one, without
> > a dynamic array.
> > 
> > Or do a dynamic array but specify that their layout in struct
> > mce_hw_er.vendor.amd are cast in stone so that we're all clear on what goes
> > where.
> > 
> > Questions over questions...
> > 
> Should we document this where struct mce_hw_err is defined, in
> arch/x86/include/asm/mce.h? Or do you have any other recommendations?

I don't know. If I knew I wouldn't have questions which you can read again and
try to answer.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette