linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] acpi/prmt: find block with specific type

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: <29052569-fd2f-401f-ba48-1d7c6d00f207@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 15:55:22 +0800
From: Koba Ko <kobak@...dia.com>
To: "Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@...el.com>, "mochs@...dia.com"
 <mochs@...dia.com>, "james.morse@....com" <james.morse@....com>,
 "rafael@...nel.org" <rafael@...nel.org>, "lenb@...nel.org"
 <lenb@...nel.org>, "erik.kaneda@...el.com" <erik.kaneda@...el.com>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi/prmt: find block with specific type


On 8/21/24 15:03, Koba Ko wrote:
>
> On 8/21/24 14:48, Zhang, Rui wrote:
>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 2024-08-21 at 14:36 +0800, Koba Ko wrote:
>>> On 8/21/24 14:33, Zhang, Rui wrote:
>>>> Yeah, but I mean pr_err() may be overkill if the driver is still
>>>> functional.
>>> how about replace with pr_warn?
>> when it fails,
>> 1. the address space handler still returns AE_OK (is it right?)
>> 2. I don't see how PRM_HANDLER_GUID_NOT_FOUND prm_status is handled
>>
>> So, if it is a critical error, we should fail the prmt probe
>> immediately.
>> If it is not, we can let space handler returns AE_OK like you do in
>> this patch, and in this case, even a pr_info() is sufficient IMV.
>>
>> thanks,
>> rui

After reviewed again, I think it's a not critical error here.
Even the current handler fails to get VA from efi_pa_va_lookup,
the next handler still have a chance to get VA successfully.
Block the procedure is overkill.
I would like to use pr_warn because pr_info may not be enough IMV.
How do you think!?
Thanks

> Agree with you. it's worse to determine the failure on another place.
> better way like yours, when get failure,
> just complain and block the procedure in the scene.
> also will modify in the v2.
> thanks
>