linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 02/21] acpi/generic_event_device: Update GHES migration to cover hest addr

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: <20240917111921.7e95726b@imammedo.users.ipa.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2024 11:19:21 +0200
From: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>, Shiju Jose
 <shiju.jose@...wei.com>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, Ani Sinha
 <anisinha@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, qemu-devel@...gnu.org,
 Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Fabiano Rosas <farosas@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 02/21] acpi/generic_event_device: Update GHES
 migration to cover hest addr

On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:23 +0200
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org> wrote:

> The GHES migration logic at GED should now support HEST table
> location too.
> 
> Increase migration version and change needed to check for both
> ghes_addr_le and hest_addr_le
But I don't think it will work like this (but I might be easily wrong)
However I don't know enough to properly review this patch, CCing Peter & Fabiano

> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
> ---
>  hw/acpi/generic_event_device.c | 11 ++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/hw/acpi/generic_event_device.c b/hw/acpi/generic_event_device.c
> index 15b4c3ebbf24..4e5e387ee2df 100644
> --- a/hw/acpi/generic_event_device.c
> +++ b/hw/acpi/generic_event_device.c
> @@ -343,10 +343,11 @@ static const VMStateDescription vmstate_ged_state = {
>  
>  static const VMStateDescription vmstate_ghes = {
>      .name = "acpi-ghes",
> -    .version_id = 1,
> -    .minimum_version_id = 1,
> +    .version_id = 2,
> +    .minimum_version_id = 2,
>      .fields = (const VMStateField[]) {
>          VMSTATE_UINT64(ghes_addr_le, AcpiGhesState),
> +        VMSTATE_UINT64(hest_addr_le, AcpiGhesState),
>          VMSTATE_END_OF_LIST()
>      },
>  };
> @@ -354,13 +355,13 @@ static const VMStateDescription vmstate_ghes = {
>  static bool ghes_needed(void *opaque)
>  {
>      AcpiGedState *s = opaque;
> -    return s->ghes_state.ghes_addr_le;
> +    return s->ghes_state.ghes_addr_le && s->ghes_state.hest_addr_le;
>  }

what I would do:
  add ghes_needed_v2(): return  s->ghes_state.hest_addr_le;

and then instead of reusing vmstate_ghes_state would add new
vmstate_ghes_v2_state subsection that migrates only 
  VMSTATE_UINT64(hest_addr_le, AcpiGhesState)
field.

btw: we probably don't need ghes_addr_le for new code that
uses HEST to lookup relevant error status block.
but we should still keep it for 9.1 and older machine types
as they expect/use it. Separate subsections would work with
this req just fine.

>  static const VMStateDescription vmstate_ghes_state = {
>      .name = "acpi-ged/ghes",
> -    .version_id = 1,
> -    .minimum_version_id = 1,
> +    .version_id = 2,
> +    .minimum_version_id = 2,
>      .needed = ghes_needed,
>      .fields = (const VMStateField[]) {
>          VMSTATE_STRUCT(ghes_state, AcpiGedState, 1,