linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND v13 06/25] cxl: Move CXL driver's RCH error handling into core/ras

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: <1bcf7e5f-da20-4f6c-979e-2c136215df11@amd.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 10:07:16 -0600
From: "Bowman, Terry" <terry.bowman@....com>
To: dan.j.williams@...el.com, dave@...olabs.net, jonathan.cameron@...wei.com,
 dave.jiang@...el.com, alison.schofield@...el.com, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
 shiju.jose@...wei.com, ming.li@...omail.com,
 Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@....com, rrichter@....com,
 dan.carpenter@...aro.org, PradeepVineshReddy.Kodamati@....com,
 lukas@...ner.de, Benjamin.Cheatham@....com,
 sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
 alucerop@....com, ira.weiny@...el.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND v13 06/25] cxl: Move CXL driver's RCH error handling into
 core/ras_rch.c



On 11/18/2025 9:20 PM, dan.j.williams@...el.com wrote:
> Terry Bowman wrote:
>> Restricted CXL Host (RCH) protocol error handling uses a procedure distinct
>> from the CXL Virtual Hierarchy (VH) handling. This is because of the
>> differences in the RCH and VH topologies. Improve the maintainability and
>> add ability to enable/disable RCH handling.
>>
>> Move and combine the RCH handling code into a single block conditionally
>> compiled with the CONFIG_CXL_RCH_RAS kernel config.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Terry Bowman <terry.bowman@....com>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes in v12->v13:
>> - None
>>
>> Changes v11->v12:
>> - Moved CXL_RCH_RAS Kconfig definition here from following commit.
>>
>> Changes v10->v11:
>> - New patch
>> ---
>>  drivers/cxl/Kconfig        |   7 +++
>>  drivers/cxl/core/Makefile  |   1 +
>>  drivers/cxl/core/core.h    |   5 +-
>>  drivers/cxl/core/pci.c     | 115 -----------------------------------
>>  drivers/cxl/core/ras_rch.c | 120 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  tools/testing/cxl/Kbuild   |   1 +
>>  6 files changed, 132 insertions(+), 117 deletions(-)
>>  create mode 100644 drivers/cxl/core/ras_rch.c
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/Kconfig b/drivers/cxl/Kconfig
>> index 217888992c88..ffe6ad981434 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cxl/Kconfig
>> +++ b/drivers/cxl/Kconfig
>> @@ -237,4 +237,11 @@ config CXL_RAS
>>  	def_bool y
>>  	depends on ACPI_APEI_GHES && PCIEAER && CXL_PCI
>>  
>> +config CXL_RCH_RAS
>> +	bool "CXL: Restricted CXL Host (RCH) protocol error handling"
>> +	def_bool n
> "n" is already the default... but I think this optionality should be
> scrapped.

Ok
>> +	depends on CXL_RAS
>> +	help
>> +	  RAS support for Restricted CXL Host (RCH) defined in CXL1.1.
> I can not imagine an end user or distro ever knowing that they need to
> disable or enable this option. What is the motivation for making this
> support optional going forward and defaulting RCH error handling off
> after all this time?
>
> ...does it get in the way of VH error handling?
>
> Otherwise the decluttering of adding a ras_rch.c file looks ok on its
> own.
No, it does not get in the way of VH. I wasn't certain which to use, 'y' or 'n'. 
I will remove the option and use default as you mentioned.

Terry