From: Punit Agrawal <punit1.agrawal@toshiba.co.jp>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Smita Koralahalli Channabasappa <skoralah@amd.com>,
Smita Koralahalli <Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@amd.com>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org,
linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
devel@acpica.org, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] cper, apei, mce: Pass x86 CPER through the MCA handling chain
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 09:54:06 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <877dsiislt.fsf@kokedama.swc.toshiba.co.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200924175023.GN5030@zn.tnic> (Borislav Petkov's message of "Thu, 24 Sep 2020 19:50:23 +0200")
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 12:23:27PM -0500, Smita Koralahalli Channabasappa wrote:
>> > Even though it's not defined in the UEFI spec, it doesn't mean a
>> > structure definition cannot be created.
>
> Created for what? That structure better have a big fat comment above it, what
> firmware generates its layout.
Maybe I could've used a better choice of words - I meant to define a
structure with meaningful member names to replace the *(ptr + i)
accesses in the patch.
The requirement for documenting the record layout doesn't change -
whether using raw pointer arithmetic vs a structure definition.
>> > After all, the patch is relying on some guarantee of the meaning of
>> > the values and their ordering.
>
> AFAICT, this looks like an ad-hoc definition and the moment they change
> it in some future revision, that struct of yours becomes invalid so we'd
> need to add another one.
If there's no spec backing the current layout, then it'll indeed be an
ad-hoc definition of a structure in the kernel. But considering that
it's part of firmware / OS interface for an important part of the RAS
story I would hope that the code is based on a spec - having that
reference included would help maintainability.
Incompatible changes will indeed break the assumptions in the kernel and
code will need to be updated - regardless of the choice of kernel
implementation; pointer arithmetic, structure definition - ad-hoc or
spec provided.
Having versioning will allow running older kernels on newer hardware and
vice versa - but I don't see why that is important only when using a
structure based access.
>
>> > If the patch is relying on the definitions in the SMCA spec it is a good
>
> Yes, what SMCA spec is that?
>
>> > idea to reference it here - both for review and providing relevant
>> > context for future developers.
>>
>> Okay, I agree the structure definition will make the code less arbitrary
>> and provides relevant context compared to pointer arithmetic. I did not
>> think this way. I can try this out if no objections.
>
> Again, this struct better have "versioning" info because the moment your
> fw people change it in some future platform, this code needs touching
> again.
>
> It probably would need touching even with the offsets if those offsets
> change but at least not having it adhere to some slow-moving spec is
> probably easier in case they wanna add/change fields.
>
> So Smita, you probably should talk to fw people about how stable that
> layout at ctx_info + 1 is going to be wrt future platforms so that
> we make sure we only access the correct offsets, now and on future
> platforms.
>
> Thx.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-25 0:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-04 14:04 [PATCH v4] cper, apei, mce: Pass x86 CPER through the MCA handling chain Smita Koralahalli
2020-09-23 10:07 ` Punit Agrawal
2020-09-23 14:05 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-09-23 14:52 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-09-23 15:39 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-09-23 18:24 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-09-24 0:02 ` Punit Agrawal
2020-09-24 17:23 ` Smita Koralahalli Channabasappa
2020-09-24 17:50 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-09-25 0:54 ` Punit Agrawal [this message]
2020-09-25 7:07 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-09-25 16:19 ` Yazen Ghannam
2020-09-25 16:27 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-09-28 8:06 ` Punit Agrawal
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=877dsiislt.fsf@kokedama.swc.toshiba.co.jp \
--to=punit1.agrawal@toshiba.co.jp \
--cc=Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@amd.com \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=devel@acpica.org \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-edac@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=skoralah@amd.com \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=yazen.ghannam@amd.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).