linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 3/5] x86/mce, EDAC/mce_amd: Add support for new MCA

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: <99c613f9-01f6-4322-a5e0-be035811076b@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 01:29:43 -0500
From: "Naik, Avadhut" <avadnaik@....com>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, "Zhuo, Qiuxu" <qiuxu.zhuo@...el.com>,
 "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
 "linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
 "linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
 "rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
 "mchehab@...nel.org" <mchehab@...nel.org>,
 "yazen.ghannam@....com" <yazen.ghannam@....com>,
 "john.allen@....com" <john.allen@....com>,
 Avadhut Naik <avadhut.naik@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/5] x86/mce, EDAC/mce_amd: Add support for new
 MCA_SYND{1,2} registers



On 10/18/2024 10:28, Luck, Tony wrote:
>> So, this is based on the assumption that all vendor data fields are of the u64 type, which may
>> NOT be true for other x86 vendors in the future. In case there is some non-u64 vendor data in
>> the future, the parser would need to break the u64 tracing data into u8 data and then composite
>> the split u8 data into other types like u16 or u32, which seems even inconvenient.
>>
>> IMHO: Printing the u8 tracing data and leaving the vendor-specific tool to parse the u8 data is a
>> more flexible and balanced approach.
>>
>> Maybe Boris and Tony could provide more comments here.
> 
> I agree. It's hard to predict the future, but there seems to be no guarantee that
> vendor specific fields will always be "u64" sized. Perhaps the MSR that data
> is picked from has only a few bits defined so we elect to save those bits in
> some smaller data type.
> 
> -Tony
Okay, sounds good! As recommended, will change that parameter to sizeof(u8).

-- 
Thanks,
Avadhut Naik