linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cxl/acpi: Warn on unsupported platform config detection

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: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 12:31:54 +0200
From: "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fabio.m.de.francesco@...ux.intel.com>
To: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
 Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
 Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>, Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
 Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
 linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cxl/acpi: Warn on unsupported platform config detection

On Wednesday, June 26, 2024 2:45:14 AM GMT+2 Dan Williams wrote:
> Alison Schofield wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 02:59:41PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > 
> > Fabio,
> > 
> > cxl/acpi does a lot of platform config work. "...unsupported platform
> > config detection" gives no hint that this is about CHBS's or an eRCD.
> > Please offer something more specific. Thanks.
> 
> The message specifies "mixed Virtual Host and Restricted CXL Host
> hierarchy" as the conflict. The relationship between RCH and eRCDs is an
> exercise for the reader, and CHBS is an ACPI detail that really should
> not be emitted in an error message. So I am struggling to imagine what a
> more specific error message would be without paragraphs of backstory.
> 
> All that is needed here is just enough words for when someone posts a
> problem to the list that someone savvy can go "ah, you fell into this
> specification hole where CXL 2.0 root port registers are difficult to
> associate with an RCH config, thanks for the report now we know that
> Linux needs to worry about this case".
> 
I think that Alison raised a good point.

If you have nothing against it, I'll change the subject line to: "cxl/acpi: 
Warn on mixed VH and eRCH hierarchies"

How about that change?

Fabio