lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH v2 5/8] efi: Decode IA32/X64 Cache, TLB, and Bus Check structures
Date
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Borislav Petkov [mailto:bp@suse.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:04 AM
> To: Ghannam, Yazen <Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>
> Cc: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; x86@kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] efi: Decode IA32/X64 Cache, TLB, and Bus Check
> structures
>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 01:39:01PM -0600, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
> > +static void print_err_info(const char *pfx, u8 err_type, u64 check)
> > +{
> > + u16 validation_bits = CHECK_VALID_BITS(check);
> > +
> > + printk("%sValidation Bits: 0x%04x\n", pfx, validation_bits);
> > +
> > + if (err_type == ERR_TYPE_MS)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + if (validation_bits & CHECK_VALID_TRANS_TYPE) {
> > + u8 trans_type = CHECK_TRANS_TYPE(check);
> > +
> > + printk("%sTransaction Type: %u, %s\n", pfx, trans_type,
> > + trans_type < ARRAY_SIZE(ia_check_trans_type_strs) ?
> > + ia_check_trans_type_strs[trans_type] : "unknown");
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (validation_bits & CHECK_VALID_OPERATION) {
> > + u8 op = CHECK_OPERATION(check);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * CACHE has more operation types than TLB or BUS, though
> the
> > + * name and the order are the same.
> > + */
> > + u8 max_ops = (err_type == ERR_TYPE_CACHE) ? 9 : 7;
> > +
> > + printk("%sOperation: %u, %s\n", pfx, op,
> > + op < max_ops ? ia_check_op_strs[op] : "unknown");
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (validation_bits & CHECK_VALID_LEVEL)
> > + printk("%sLevel: %llu\n", pfx, CHECK_LEVEL(check));
> > +
> > + if (validation_bits & CHECK_VALID_PCC)
> > + print_bool("Processor Context Corrupt", pfx, check,
> CHECK_PCC);
>
> I think we want to print PCC here unconditionally and say:
>
> PCC: (yes|no|invalid)
>
> I don't think the absence of PCC in the error record is a good enough
> hint that the PCC field is invalid.
>
> Ditto for the rest and transaction type above too. I think it would be
> much easier if we have fixed fields error record.
>

I agree which is why I've included the Validation Bits. A user can then
check the Validation Bits for any field that is of interest but missing.

Thanks,
Yazen
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-27 16:34    [W:0.129 / U:3.860 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site