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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <691d376d5a132_1a3751004d@dwillia2-mobl4.notmuch>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 19:20:13 -0800
From: <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Terry Bowman <terry.bowman@....com>, <dave@...olabs.net>,
	<jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>, <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
	<alison.schofield@...el.com>, <dan.j.williams@...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>,
	<terry.bowman@....com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND v13 06/25] cxl: Move CXL driver's RCH error handling into
 core/ras_rch.c

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.

> +	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.