From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=205.220.168.131 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1793373591; b=GZ1muZg8FL+2G1K5OHSgPdKUJT4WGHHVZWoZNinoHanB9RqSiMroA1RhigKGWq1LEb+I yeNPnNATvalJaz3j5AscbA5CGVJAxZBjagz7KIjItCAOdQF+PGd3eDCjZfmFiaBe3N/hF 9peYmW0xoCDvo/Y2NOR1peL8Qh/G9I0ULtBns/KMNw5uLFAfZBog/6ixA7Urx9SagICNt xemhxWrVlc1GtSw+/31TDsvZrArmJX0RrWXCnjX/jPXqcuGUzDp5sA2rZdVKJxhQvoUBH Bz5cbFt77+t5yX5nUfkIhT3M9rArI5xTA0RJP8Iz8cw8yerZPs409ff1KDF8CAhDXAg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1793373591; h=DMARC-Filter:Received:DKIM-Signature:Received:Received: DKIM-Signature:X-Google-DKIM-Signature:X-Forwarded-Encrypted: X-Gm-Message-State:X-Gm-Gg:X-Received:X-Received:Received:Date:From: To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:Organization:X-Mailer: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details-Enc:X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: X-Proofpoint-GUID:X-Authority-Analysis:X-Proofpoint-Spam-Info: X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version:X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details; bh=FGkyxQN9i0NhBdCJIXq1uYlUjDXSlWOx7RjK7fuDemM=; b=Bvlnw/eF2NLE5EXM0uqV9HYozalcuvJTvpQtYA7QmKqg59e3tk419EpL5HChzY/62eMD YwGlKngOCcllf5bWPZy4I122N9g237mZ6irH05ZzolImmm+ndBtD5/YPkrfev0dRUSGbh mHsudKqx0cprsMcY0dLPkn6/bws9m64/ZDHGZdiPhBpnDgDvVTfIzJHqIKeyESp6Slmrg Q4GzzQ3qZpXhpfEzbujMe0GNqSJ3F8aAghvby5dLcN8Lr9iuT/JxiYh1MtxfPgzcGra7A 7JT5Z0wo+9Z2OoC5DTLo2qSZXhn2RRsgiUPzOXlrjjiUsFgXTTdqnZ7sy2Lb77Ww0qw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass header.from=oss.qualcomm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=oss.qualcomm.com; dkim=pass header.d=qualcomm.com header.i=@qualcomm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=qcppdkim1 header.b=AwZhD1dB; dkim=pass header.d=oss.qualcomm.com header.i=@oss.qualcomm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=google header.b=PUjxFcO5; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=205.220.168.131 Received: from mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com [205.220.168.131]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 887BF606A323 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2026 15:19:50 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org 887BF606A323 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=oss.qualcomm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=oss.qualcomm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=qualcomm.com header.i=@qualcomm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=qcppdkim1 header.b=AwZhD1dB; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=oss.qualcomm.com header.i=@oss.qualcomm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=google header.b=PUjxFcO5 Received: from pps.filterd (m0279864.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.11/8.18.1.11) with ESMTP id 69UES6U41954133 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2026 15:19:49 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=qualcomm.com; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to; s=qcppdkim1; bh= FGkyxQN9i0NhBdCJIXq1uYlUjDXSlWOx7RjK7fuDemM=; b=AwZhD1dBRmP8Tyfx 1gG20HuFAU1a2cuph7IGHXKITBF/tFArNX9LK1LpPvrPPoZFKGjx2dyvKX23UtHS NYkC50mBMEpZOVwK0tfV0bMtZdQP0Zvygh4pyvHCeT9r4ri8F4LX2NEMOZVdwpUD 6QvJUXKDohf7O2ixKt6YHDsvU5FIJxo9Bdq44lvTUUM7NEb01ZRu+mAsgTUlWQ38 IegLbJqK9w6z7wZ1okemLhEV5SHGhUJTHCcHCvKq9Y7JIqtOmw1qK20MFBeke9C2 qOvzZ1MeVWA8ESRROuge9EQrQq17hFm5TbUAgnxXp4Ijn+ugmae38k6DVkh4gzIh etqevA== Received: from mail-oi1-f200.google.com (mail-oi1-f200.google.com [209.85.167.200]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 4hme6pkqsp-1 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2026 15:19:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: by mail-oi1-f200.google.com with SMTP id 5614622812f47-55bf11583d9so1174176b6e.1 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2026 08:19:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oss.qualcomm.com; s=google; t=1793373589; x=1793978389; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type:mime-version:organization :references:in-reply-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=FGkyxQN9i0NhBdCJIXq1uYlUjDXSlWOx7RjK7fuDemM=; b=PUjxFcO5UuWQAUyOCGDsqxJMSJWkqKkSiNJrNLjOTyJi1dNbaQ3X11tJkhD67swXw5 h9P20caPM/LPQpvjr8Rj1N7/rWs0eDYKGLtR9bDzCRb77mEPdYHWwbBjiDjhXUE2ZqX8 9eK6/IaCJOUSkrb6lKKJnAKneRBhhQZmF8hEgumQBkTwkYhhezgej+xJNpOcL8OW9Wnv NBl3ad+qHOgPv7ECtolCcFFTO45EvnrYIC+sjrMLJgMVynbWQPqvsEW40ByeXzM10pQ6 1qzjdl/1oNmpFzIQF1MoKroKBCtNyW+kTKMi8fO995jrXrT+jWL8RQVwOkMZXnckqxhF 0Q8Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20260707; t=1793373589; x=1793978389; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type:mime-version:organization :references:in-reply-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to :content-type; bh=FGkyxQN9i0NhBdCJIXq1uYlUjDXSlWOx7RjK7fuDemM=; b=mTHXBw16WsX/IBcVCr836P0UjgrsAkGHZA5oo/2bJ0DuHrAdZQvSusjOcLFb7OTN8p ZdcD7/g+QKDW/pe2/VYgqDwb7ryVoi+ipW5bVbUSvYCN6bCkNZOeOSXyVgxXE4VHiiSq 2gqiKaI8gIG1x2W6ZoRFw4b//vZL+2xLU9PunsxyC1O78uiyzhWgiftfAEtIKHCQSIy7 DdIl6Ovm32HflFR51FNN+ULOYCSJ/m2zOmsn/fXF8zVzz5taPlMaPdG+TQmbqvxK+Ivf W5tUgPpqNDlcBrS9RtNbbVQGwXn34XQtZsABMPZ8YSgVHXr9dFY8yFIiISvGPEBnpTK4 Lnag== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AKwUvByJZLqRVTFCFOMivt4Lmu60NX3qbJsInGolykxbJ5pED2Qr6XodA7y/JFhdTlRq8EiejyPdUbJ4qMVy@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AFq9FYKUOtbN6w14K5oNKyCS13mTW1uVxGrRenJs+xU5SAG2OGAvUGDc VkKw0kZCd9T9ISokTdXEBERlCuO29lXp3C5GwXlelvpPRlmCnG4UW8tSSTOTqbSCt7B7PoJpjAG usxOdJG45wWZMAHNm/H14tNxpkkgs0Q9U0o60OW64lDLOwhMmQvhjB3hQbvGovMOy X-Gm-Gg: AYBFou3La/rWSmIct4PXk7PkN1orjbzgOGaAZE7TsFBSEqsmgTJlawg7lbRC2eX5qaG ST3QO1R+HztFUMz+DQIiTFg5fjFNDMe/jtBELXfr4Xi5lOkCFvM23WASlnV7Kpp8en7otGV02ht LB3r0JrCt+KjdlW3JuFN39PLJfImSStMjViHAh+85U8qz0F0bShD93e+7kT6AWJANcoh8zRnuI4 wgldHbcgNTGYs87x2AviDkJRYvPaNtZEvkSFOPql8o/NUVU7Huv8ThduXgCgUCLG2/W5RhCAk0y wGtTZ34L3/mC1aJEh42QzsOpyeGgV9zjCL0VgWbyiahJ/NlUbjknnEn2bkYzHGObeGdmrQsU3H0 wfEC833Z8zd2nvmNaTdtktgwSEniziyY88LUzZlZUKEaj7rldw5Zwn5ZnDwWBYcIkzMOC8rztEE GBLRjRnMC5rbli1XU5OEZ60ZyFIfY= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:ec2:b0:495:f8a5:8797 with SMTP id 5614622812f47-563ef28e71bmr3103328b6e.0.1793373588707; Fri, 30 Oct 2026 08:19:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:ec2:b0:495:f8a5:8797 with SMTP id 5614622812f47-563ef28e71bmr3103286b6e.0.1793373588134; Fri, 30 Oct 2026 08:19:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (i-global254.qualcomm.com. [199.106.103.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5614622812f47-5640fe42454sm1821202b6e.17.2026.10.30.08.19.44 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 30 Oct 2026 08:19:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2026 08:19:41 -0700 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Pierre Gondois Cc: Ashok Raj , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Tony Luck , Borislav Petkov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, James Morse , Mark Brown , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Shuai Xue , Maciej Wieczor-Retman , Pawel Chmielewski , Dave Jiang , "Fabio M. De Francesco" , Breno Leitao , Dan Williams , Terry Bowman , Ard Biesheuvel , Morduan Zang , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, acpica-devel@lists.linux.dev, Ashok Raj Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] CPER: Add Memory Error Section 2 support Message-ID: <20261030081941.000040e7@oss.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <43301529-f169-493c-bc59-fa08b77e1ef3@arm.com> References: <20261019203915.2019037-1-pierre.gondois@arm.com> <20261020101048.00000186@oss.qualcomm.com> <0817615d-5e96-4a3a-b39e-3e5d1b88e716@arm.com> <20261023142621.00007051@oss.qualcomm.com> <20261024003917.283b890d@foz.lan> <20261023170405.000060b8@oss.qualcomm.com> <43301529-f169-493c-bc59-fa08b77e1ef3@arm.com> Organization: Qualcomm X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.4.0 (GTK 3.24.51; x86_64-w64-mingw32) X-Mailing-List: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details-Enc: AW1haW4tMjYxMDMwMDA2MSBTYWx0ZWRfX3SaIuE8PSlDf 5JkQNISoqnr5xbNQlQuKuVmqK81iWP3u2+nFXmHYel8zgwsb6qPfav5B2Rkqvx/xV2YOQzyG9Nw /ZLkE4e9yTZL8rKkMOpnWEEJjm2K0kmnbJyKRxj4RVoqNneLnTwwwnIaTvQHYdm960x7x/U64wt AzaLsqkPKK54mANpcgRCWgptW5n4sXnSOocUdt0ExnsGInMXd7Ci+l2XQSMT4xwCpO0oHn35rkG U01cE58aQJTr8monzv1qYqDQVi/xOzAcFJRey09BTdUNUueBsU71GPSMAj9WrCOmKGuti20V06g WwCZo2cWKM97nii1R82ljCdlsyQ+tD1HghBjhUBsc2htXi9EVs8FQ/4tuTSqVdo4EaYxLAYc++a EHy4GptDnD4k8JY0m/UwSUWNPbTilRGaT5n9i4bArMMMf+96jyR1tXlnMEMGtC+VYx2S/o1cx5B aZbqnoVcdAXuUsJHxHA== X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: HuuwibGqPrVciKOtPl3g67H161lZhKaG X-Proofpoint-GUID: HuuwibGqPrVciKOtPl3g67H161lZhKaG X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=AJ83otAg c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=6ae4b595 cx=c_pps a=AKZTfHrQPB8q3CcvmcIuDA==:117 a=JYp8KDb2vCoCEuGobkYCKw==:17 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=660iZSQnnn4A:10 a=s4-Qcg_JpJYA:10 a=VkNPw1HP01LnGYTKEx00:22 a=u7WPNUs3qKkmUXheDGA7:22 a=DJpcGTmdVt4CTyJn9g5Z:22 a=7CQSdrXTAAAA:8 a=VwQbUJbxAAAA:8 a=EUspDBNiAAAA:8 a=RAp2bQ1MI6N82g0F2AwA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=pF_qn-MSjDawc0seGVz6:22 a=a-qgeE7W1pNrGK8U0ZQC:22 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Info: AW1haW4tMjYxMDMwMDA2MSBTYWx0ZWRfXxOhTCttHLxWF CB04sDHoctTaoEcNK5fwU4u3JJiZXmfV+i8HgIDqjDVDAesF4nmPfNo7BXwCPrl4HkBv6/iKvgq p/1m3sm1lZ9v+/A6/b8mAERB5g1xWnc= X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1176,Hydra:6.1.138,FMLib:17.12.100.49 definitions=2026-10-30_05,2026-10-21_02,2025-10-01_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=typeunknown authscore=0 authtc= authcc= route=outbound adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.22.0-2610190000 definitions=main-2610300061 On Fri, 30 Oct 2026 12:51:47 +0100 Pierre Gondois wrote: > On 10/25/26 00:05, Ashok Raj wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2026 at 05:04:05PM -0700, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > >> On Sat, 24 Oct 2026 00:40:33 +0200 > >> Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > >> > >>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 14:26:21 -0700 > >>> Jonathan Cameron wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2026 09:07:25 +0200 > >>>> Pierre Gondois wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 10/20/26 19:10, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > >>>>>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2026 22:38:39 +0200 > >>>>>> Pierre Gondois wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> The support is mostly duplicated from Memory Error Section handling. > >>>>>>> Other than differences coming from the content of Memory Error > >>>>>>> Section 1 and 2, differences in the support are: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> - v2 do not rely on a compact "struct cper_mem_err_compact" struct. > >>>>>>> This structure was used to support older versions of the Memory > >>>>>>> Error Section (1). This is not needed for the new structure. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> - The compact version is also used by the tracing framework. > >>>>>>> To avoid relying and propagating a non-standard record format, > >>>>>>> through trace event (cf. extlog_mem event) the new trace event > >>>>>>> prints each field individually. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The last patch of the serie was only build-tested due to the > >>>>>>> absence of relevant hardware. apei_mce_report_mem_error() and > >>>>>>> arch_apei_report_mem_error() implementations were also removed since > >>>>>>> last version. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It will also require a proper handling from the rasdaemon. Applying > >>>>>>> this last patch without rasdaemon support will silent the reports of > >>>>>>> Memory Error Section 2 error, cf. ras_userspace_consumers() check. > >>>>>> Hi Pierre, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'd slow down a bit. We are mid merge window and convention is normally > >>>>>> one version a week or so anyway. Better to gather up feedback from > >>>>>> a number of folk and spin only one revision to cover it all. > >>>>>> > >>>>> Hello Jonathan, > >>>>> > >>>>> Ok sure, as the v1 was reviewed quickly I thought there was a chance > >>>>> of having the serie accepted quickly aswell. I ll wait a bit more. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks for the review, > >>>>> > >>>>> Pierre > >>>>> > >>>> A general question that came up in a related thread with one of > >>>> our RAS architects. How does firmware decide what to send? As far as > >>>> I can tell firwmare has no way to know whether the OS understands the CPER > >>>> Memory Section 2. > >>>> > >>>> So options that come to mind. > >>>> 1. Firmware must send a CPER with both Memory Section and Memory Section 2. > >>> Please don't do this: this would require either Kernespace or userspace to > >>> discard one of the reports, only if the other one is there, which can be > >>> tricky. Could be done more easily at userspace, but only if some database > >>> support is enabled, but, at least on rasdaemon, this is an optional module. > >> Good. That confirms my view that is horrible. > > Hi Jonathan, > > > > I agree that an _OSC capability is the right long-term solution. > > > > Firmware should select one native CPER format based on OS support, rather > > than emit both Section 1 and Section 2 and leave deduplication to the OS > > or userspace. > > > > For a Section 2-capable kernel, we may still avoid a second GHES notifier > > chain: preserve the existing struct cper_sec_mem_err * contract and give > > it a lossy Section 1 projection of a Section 2 record. The conversion must > > translate validation bits and clear validity for values that cannot be > > represented, rather than truncate them. > > I understand we might want to emit a new extlog_mem2_event and a lossy > extlog_mem_event for legacy userspace, but I'm not sure to follow how > you want to do it. > > Do you suggest that we only need one notifier (ghes_report_mem_chain) > and that we should not add ghes_report_mem2_chain ? This would mean > that the .notifier_call (= ghes_edac_report_mem_error) should handle > both cper_sec_mem_err/cper_sec_mem_err2 struct. > > Another solution would be to keep the ghes_report_mem2_chain, > which would be responsible of creating the lossy v1 struct and > triggering the original ghes_report_mem_chain. > > > That preserves legacy EDAC consumers, but cannot carry all Section 2 data. > > Updated userspace needs the native Section 2 payload through a > > full-fidelity path, such as the existing GUID-tagged raw CPER event. > > > > This does mean an updated userspace listener may receive both the legacy > > EDAC summary and the raw Section 2 record for the same firmware error. > > They are two kernel views, not two firmware reports. We should therefore > > add a shared GHES record/section ID to both events, so userspace can > > correlate them reliably; address and timestamp are not sufficient. > > > > So _OSC solves firmware selection for old versus new kernels, while a > > Section 1 projection plus the raw payload handles legacy versus updated > > consumers on a new kernel. > > > > Thoughts? > > This will put more burden on the firmware, but this seems the right > thing to do. I ll share the thread with the group working more closely > on the architecture aswell, We have will have a code first proposal for the _OSC part shortly. Just going through internal review. I'll make sure you + others here are on the +CC. J > > Regards, > > Pierre > > > > Thanks, > > Ashok > >>>> 2. For whatever other reason a platform knows it doesn't work with old kernel > >>>> so can assume support in kernel and hopefully userspace got updated too. > >>>> > >>>> 3. We propose some additional discoverability (quickly - code first) to ACPI > >>>> so that it can be a negotiated contract between OS and firmware. > >>>> Until the OS confirms it understands Memory Section 2, firmware has to send > >>>> the older one (or risk the record not being understood). After that > >>>> negotiation it can do what it likes - probably send the Memory Section 2 form. > >>>> > >>>> Option 1 and 2 are ugly at best. > >>>> > >>>> Obvious path to me for option 3 is an _OSC like the one for generic initiators > >>>> that we discovered a need for whilst implementing that years ago. > >>>> > >>>> Anyhow have a better idea? The above doesn't solve the end to end problem as > >>>> maybe userspace still has no idea what this new tracepoint is, but at least gets > >>>> us past hop 1 (so through the kernel). > >>>> > >>>> If we conclude _OSC plan works I'll draft a code first proposal. > >>>> > >>>> Jonathan > >> On another note, Pierre, any plans to actually enable a path to the tracepoints > >> on arm64? Today they only emerge from acpi_extlog which is x86 only. > >> > >> We definitely want the richer data for PFA and obviously for userspace nice > >> to share tracepoints with extlog. > >> > >> Jonathan > >> > >> > >>> Regards, > >>> Mauro