From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ej1-f52.google.com (mail-ej1-f52.google.com [209.85.218.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 179D372 for ; Fri, 7 May 2021 23:02:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ej1-f52.google.com with SMTP id b25so15848482eju.5 for ; Fri, 07 May 2021 16:02:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Cysv76arNz3MFs69VgX48DEkoN+9KVfkGC6lPIgs6LE=; b=g8Uua7ZkJUkGmrfi9VOU8KXTzma6Sz/ha6C4zc2aV/dvLPFPBuro4R1QQHIupXI1K3 Nq0ofBpyKFYN+zfIgJzSfNoYSchacVQcM/LzruoFvtv+dVO+PufL97znHHXj2rf1+cIB wapM++MV9+XseRUEnb9GC8DcT6lgUQ9j3nAVnLFScuw/sJ3+jM0WSbwmjR9pXsbpvjEF eYE9gaXgPB0JVWi7ZW1iLMhAEJ+Icu8UmkixAEjfU4q2PGCAgLJdlGzxNd4aYczL0NWq 9edVVRwc5zWREXezpVsrimURLVLQ4MkNiyoNvaWBs3MhYSnGuNGRgEvL9o+vC7/bG4i0 cVzQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Cysv76arNz3MFs69VgX48DEkoN+9KVfkGC6lPIgs6LE=; b=YmJdxpIoFxJSstx3iT3wmmkhAEMYExT93FzqOoCm3fug1z8p2ggBzNyhJS4FMTBVS0 FbcSWtC0Oi4yEvPzRS3o2iYfWSftt9quDoOw/itnA6lVxAuhhj/TBsayChjTl4kcvCcB cysQpNMzLDCCeQOwgQFtWQjK/K/Z6AUvSysH0qTMlHbW6zQW1Tgf90UZSX+WayZ6lHN0 TeGkQVvig/LxXLx18De/Nu3O6ROU9A/isPL7YiV6MLBfi9TvoJvKoLoZg3IRiYvUONIR jIVhXnjaOi01yMjlihdZdWgf7/Eldk5njbdZJBODOV7PzojPQLccBjr2Emnhq2LhBOGz QIZQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533B7HC0dDuyWYg7uQFoL8OF9zp1s8vuXjc5qXloUhjfblm6tjTz 9ND9ioFKHcae4rbF/L3xLEYZ9NyTTKxgI2fqE45w6IJKaRo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx0vlXi8joVqX/bKq6BizKlwHJaiCJq3xBs6gTLXhtM3osxEcKR8qoOa8bY8Rty55XhIwEh7d0ppVWIj9mVfww= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:33da:: with SMTP id w26mr12947744eja.472.1620428524398; Fri, 07 May 2021 16:02:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailing-List: nvdimm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <162037273007.1195827.10907249070709169329.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: From: Dan Williams Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 16:01:53 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: NFIT: Fix support for variable 'SPA' structure size To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Rafael Wysocki , Bob Moore , Erik Kaneda , Yi Zhang , nvdimm@lists.linux.dev, linux-nvdimm , ACPI Devel Maling List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 7:49 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 4:12 PM Dan Williams wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 2:47 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > > > On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 9:33 AM Dan Williams wrote: > > > > > > > > ACPI 6.4 introduced the "SpaLocationCookie" to the NFIT "System Physical > > > > Address (SPA) Range Structure". The presence of that new field is > > > > indicated by the ACPI_NFIT_LOCATION_COOKIE_VALID flag. Pre-ACPI-6.4 > > > > firmware implementations omit the flag and maintain the original size of > > > > the structure. > > > > > > > > Update the implementation to check that flag to determine the size > > > > rather than the ACPI 6.4 compliant definition of 'struct > > > > acpi_nfit_system_address' from the Linux ACPICA definitions. > > > > > > > > Update the test infrastructure for the new expectations as well, i.e. > > > > continue to emulate the ACPI 6.3 definition of that structure. > > > > > > > > Without this fix the kernel fails to validate 'SPA' structures and this > > > > leads to a crash in nfit_get_smbios_id() since that routine assumes that > > > > SPAs are valid if it finds valid SMBIOS tables. > > > > > > > > BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffffffffffffffa8 > > > > [..] > > > > Call Trace: > > > > skx_get_nvdimm_info+0x56/0x130 [skx_edac] > > > > skx_get_dimm_config+0x1f5/0x213 [skx_edac] > > > > skx_register_mci+0x132/0x1c0 [skx_edac] > > > > > > > > Cc: Bob Moore > > > > Cc: Erik Kaneda > > > > Fixes: cf16b05c607b ("ACPICA: ACPI 6.4: NFIT: add Location Cookie field") > > > > > > Do you want me to apply this (as the commit being fixed went in > > > through the ACPI tree)? > > > > Yes, I would need to wait for a signed tag so if you're sending urgent > > fixes in the next few days please take this one, otherwise I'll circle > > back next week after -rc1. > > I'll be doing my next push after -rc1 either, so I guess it doesn't > matter time-wise. Ok, I got it, thanks for the offer.