linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4 v2] ACPI: extlog: Trace CPER CXL Protocol Errors

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: <2947754.vYhyI6sBWr@fdefranc-mobl3>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2025 20:06:28 +0200
From: "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fabio.m.de.francesco@...ux.intel.com>
To: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
 Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
 Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
 Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
 Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
 Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>, Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
 Mahesh J Salgaonkar <mahesh@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@...il.com>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
 Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
 linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4 v2] ACPI: extlog: Trace CPER CXL Protocol Errors

On Tuesday, April 29, 2025 8:20:55 PM Central European Summer Time Yazen Ghannam wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 07:21:09PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > When Firmware First is enabled, BIOS handles errors first and then it
> > makes them available to the kernel via the Common Platform Error Record
> > (CPER) sections (UEFI 2.10 Appendix N). Linux parses the CPER sections
> > via one of two similar paths, either ELOG or GHES.
> > 
> > Currently, ELOG and GHES show some inconsistencies in how they report to
> > userspace via trace events.
> > 
> > Therfore make the two mentioned paths act similarly by tracing the CPER
> > CXL Protocol Error Section (UEFI v2.10, Appendix N.2.13) signaled by the
> > I/O Machine Check Architecture and reported by BIOS in FW-First.
> > 
> > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <fabio.m.de.francesco@...ux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/acpi/acpi_extlog.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  drivers/cxl/core/ras.c     |  6 ++++
> >  include/cxl/event.h        |  2 ++
> >  3 files changed, 68 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_extlog.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_extlog.c
> > index 7d7a813169f1..8f2ff3505d47 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_extlog.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_extlog.c
> > @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
> >  #include <linux/ratelimit.h>
> >  #include <linux/edac.h>
> >  #include <linux/ras.h>
> > +#include <cxl/event.h>
> >  #include <acpi/ghes.h>
> >  #include <asm/cpu.h>
> >  #include <asm/mce.h>
> > @@ -157,6 +158,60 @@ static void extlog_print_pcie(struct cper_sec_pcie *pcie_err,
> >  	}
> >  }
> >  
> > +static void
> > +extlog_cxl_cper_handle_prot_err(struct cxl_cper_sec_prot_err *prot_err,
> > +				int severity)
> > +{
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_PCIEAER
> 
> Why not apply this check on the function prototype?
> 
This function is static.
>
> Reference: Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> 	   Section 21) Conditional Compilation
> 
> > +	struct cxl_cper_prot_err_work_data wd;
> > +	u8 *dvsec_start, *cap_start;
> > +
> > +	if (!(prot_err->valid_bits & PROT_ERR_VALID_AGENT_ADDRESS)) {
> > +		pr_err_ratelimited("CXL CPER invalid agent type\n");
> > +		return;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (!(prot_err->valid_bits & PROT_ERR_VALID_ERROR_LOG)) {
> > +		pr_err_ratelimited("CXL CPER invalid protocol error log\n");
> > +		return;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (prot_err->err_len != sizeof(struct cxl_ras_capability_regs)) {
> > +		pr_err_ratelimited("CXL CPER invalid RAS Cap size (%u)\n",
> > +				   prot_err->err_len);
> > +		return;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (!(prot_err->valid_bits & PROT_ERR_VALID_SERIAL_NUMBER))
> > +		pr_warn(FW_WARN "CXL CPER no device serial number\n");
> 
> Is this a requirement (in the spec) that we should warn users about?
> 
> The UEFI spec says that serial number is only used if "CXL agent" is a
> "CXL device".
> 
> "CXL ports" won't have serial numbers. So this will be a false warning
> for port errors.
> 
I'll add a test and print that warning only if agent is a device (RCD,
DEVICE, LD, FMLD).
>
> > +
> > +	switch (prot_err->agent_type) {
> > +	case RCD:
> > +	case DEVICE:
> > +	case LD:
> > +	case FMLD:
> > +	case RP:
> > +	case DSP:
> > +	case USP:
> > +		memcpy(&wd.prot_err, prot_err, sizeof(wd.prot_err));
> > +
> > +		dvsec_start = (u8 *)(prot_err + 1);
> > +		cap_start = dvsec_start + prot_err->dvsec_len;
> > +
> > +		memcpy(&wd.ras_cap, cap_start, sizeof(wd.ras_cap));
> > +		wd.severity = cper_severity_to_aer(severity);
> > +		break;
> > +	default:
> > +		pr_err_ratelimited("CXL CPER invalid agent type: %d\n",
> 
> "invalid" is too harsh given that the specs may be updated. Maybe say
> "reserved" or "unknown" or "unrecognized" instead.
> 
> Hopefully things will settle down to where a user will be able to have a
> system with newer CXL "agents" without *requiring* a kernel update. :)
>
I'll replace "invalid" with "unknown".
> 
> Thanks,
> Yazen
> 
Thanks,

Fabio