linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Updates for CXL Event Records

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: <ZxAppnCBf4wFgcQ0@aschofie-mobl2.lan>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 14:01:26 -0700
From: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>
To: shiju.jose@...wei.com
Cc: dave.jiang@...el.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
	jonathan.cameron@...wei.com, vishal.l.verma@...el.com,
	ira.weiny@...el.com, dave@...olabs.net, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxarm@...wei.com,
	tanxiaofei@...wei.com, prime.zeng@...ilicon.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Updates for CXL Event Records

On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 05:33:45PM +0100, shiju.jose@...wei.com wrote:
> From: Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@...wei.com>
> 
> CXL spec rev 3.1 CXL Event Records has updated w.r.t CXL spec rev 3.0.
> Add updates for the above spec changes in the CXL events records and CXL
> trace events implementation.
> 
> Note: Please apply following fix patch first if not present.
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/cxl/patch/20241014143003.1170-1-shiju.jose@huawei.com/
> 
> Shiju Jose (4):
>   cxl/events: Updates for CXL Common Event Record Format
>   cxl/events: Updates for CXL General Media Event Record
>   cxl/events: Updates for CXL DRAM Event Record
>   cxl/events: Updates for CXL Memory Module Event Record

Thanks, this looks useful! I didn't review line by line but do
have some feedback before for a v1:

- Suggest being more explicit in the commit msg(s). Something like:
cxl/events: Update Common Event Record to CXL spec 3.1

- I was a bit surprised that this doesn't simply append new fields
to the TP_printk() output. Is there some reason for that?

- How about updating the mock of these events to include these new
fields. I don't think this introduces any new formats, but I would
certainly eyeball all 3: dmesg tp_printk, trace file, and monitor
output because all 3 (sadly) present a bit differently.

-- Alison

> 
>  drivers/cxl/core/trace.h | 201 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>  include/cxl/event.h      |  20 +++-
>  2 files changed, 190 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> 
> -- 
> 2.34.1
>