linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/15] acpi/ghes: simplify acpi_ghes_record

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: <20240925150933.0000373d@Huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 15:09:33 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
CC: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>, Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@...wei.com>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, Ani Sinha <anisinha@...hat.com>,
	Dongjiu Geng <gengdongjiu1@...il.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<qemu-arm@...gnu.org>, <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/15] acpi/ghes: simplify acpi_ghes_record_errors()
 code

On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 06:04:07 +0200
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org> wrote:

> Reduce the ident of the function and prepares it for
> the next changes.
> 
> No functional changes.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
> Reviewed-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>
Some of the alignment doesn't seem to match local style which
is either align after ( or align 4 spaces in from line above for
multiple line argument lists.

Code is fine as I guess the later structure is to prepare
for additions that prevent early returns being sensible.

With that in mind.

Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>

> ---
>  hw/acpi/ghes.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
>  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/hw/acpi/ghes.c b/hw/acpi/ghes.c
> index dc217694deb9..dacbd4d0c093 100644
> --- a/hw/acpi/ghes.c
> +++ b/hw/acpi/ghes.c
> @@ -402,40 +402,42 @@ int acpi_ghes_record_errors(uint8_t source_id, uint64_t physical_address)
>  
>      start_addr = le64_to_cpu(ags->ghes_addr_le);
>  
> -    if (physical_address) {
> +    if (!physical_address) {
> +        return -1;
> +    }
>  
> -        if (source_id < ACPI_GHES_ERROR_SOURCE_COUNT) {
> -            start_addr += source_id * sizeof(uint64_t);
> -        }
> +    if (source_id < ACPI_GHES_ERROR_SOURCE_COUNT) {
> +        start_addr += source_id * sizeof(uint64_t);
> +    }
>  
> -        cpu_physical_memory_read(start_addr, &error_block_addr,
> -                                 sizeof(error_block_addr));
> +    cpu_physical_memory_read(start_addr, &error_block_addr,
> +                                sizeof(error_block_addr));
>  
> -        error_block_addr = le64_to_cpu(error_block_addr);
> +    error_block_addr = le64_to_cpu(error_block_addr);
>  
> -        read_ack_register_addr = start_addr +
> -            ACPI_GHES_ERROR_SOURCE_COUNT * sizeof(uint64_t);
> +    read_ack_register_addr = start_addr +
> +        ACPI_GHES_ERROR_SOURCE_COUNT * sizeof(uint64_t);
>  
> -        cpu_physical_memory_read(read_ack_register_addr,
> -                                 &read_ack_register, sizeof(read_ack_register));
> +    cpu_physical_memory_read(read_ack_register_addr,
> +                                &read_ack_register, sizeof(read_ack_register));

Alignment looks fishy plus maybe move &read_ack_register up a line.


>  
> -        /* zero means OSPM does not acknowledge the error */
> -        if (!read_ack_register) {
> -            error_report("OSPM does not acknowledge previous error,"
> -                " so can not record CPER for current error anymore");
> -        } else if (error_block_addr) {
> -            read_ack_register = cpu_to_le64(0);
> -            /*
> -             * Clear the Read Ack Register, OSPM will write it to 1 when
> -             * it acknowledges this error.
> -             */
> -            cpu_physical_memory_write(read_ack_register_addr,
> -                &read_ack_register, sizeof(uint64_t));
> +    /* zero means OSPM does not acknowledge the error */
> +    if (!read_ack_register) {
> +        error_report("OSPM does not acknowledge previous error,"
> +            " so can not record CPER for current error anymore");
I guess later changes make it unwise to just return -1 here.	

> +    } else if (error_block_addr) {
> +        read_ack_register = cpu_to_le64(0);
> +        /*
> +         * Clear the Read Ack Register, OSPM will write it to 1 when
> +         * it acknowledges this error.
> +         */
> +        cpu_physical_memory_write(read_ack_register_addr,
> +            &read_ack_register, sizeof(uint64_t));
>  
> -            ret = acpi_ghes_record_mem_error(error_block_addr,
> -                                             physical_address);
> -        } else
> -            error_report("can not find Generic Error Status Block");
> +        ret = acpi_ghes_record_mem_error(error_block_addr,
> +                                            physical_address);
or return here.
> +    } else {
> +        error_report("can not find Generic Error Status Block");
>      }
>  
>      return ret;