Re: [RESEND PATCH v3 3/9] EDAC/ghes: Make ghes_edac a proper module to remove the dependency on ghes

[Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 03:40:42PM +0000, Jia He wrote:
> Commit dc4e8c07e9e2 ("ACPI: APEI: explicit init of HEST and GHES in
> apci_init()") introduced a bug that ghes_edac_register() would be invoked
> before edac_init(). Because at that time, the bus "edac" hadn't been even
> registered, this created sysfs /devices/mc0 instead of
> /sys/devices/system/edac/mc/mc0 on an Ampere eMag server.
> 
> To remove the dependency of ghes_edac on ghes, make it a proper module. Use
> a list to save the probing devices in ghes_probe(), and defer the
> ghes_edac_register() to module_init() of the new ghes_edac module by
> iterating over the devices list.
> 
> Co-developed-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
> Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
> Signed-off-by: Jia He <justin.he@arm.com>
> Fixes: dc4e8c07e9e2 ("ACPI: APEI: explicit init of HEST and GHES in apci_init()")
> Cc: stable@kernel.org

Why is this marked for stable?

The prerequisite patches are needed too. I guess this needs to be
communicated to stable folks somehow by doing

Cc: stable@kernel.org # needs commits X, Y, ...

but I guess the committer needs to do that because only at commit time
will X and Y be known...

So, is there any particular reason why this should be in stable?

> @@ -1442,7 +1449,9 @@ static int ghes_remove(struct platform_device *ghes_dev)
>  
>  	ghes_fini(ghes);
>  
> -	ghes_edac_unregister(ghes);
> +	mutex_lock(&ghes_devs_mutex);
> +	list_del_rcu(&ghes->elist);

Is that list RCU-protected?

> +	mutex_unlock(&ghes_devs_mutex);
>  
>  	kfree(ghes);

...

> @@ -566,3 +549,35 @@ void ghes_edac_unregister(struct ghes *ghes)
>  unlock:
>  	mutex_unlock(&ghes_reg_mutex);
>  }
> +
> +static int __init ghes_edac_init(void)
> +{
> +	struct ghes *g, *g_tmp;
> +
> +	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86))
> +		force_load = true;

No, this is not how this works.

> +	ghes_devs = ghes_get_devices(force_load);
> +	if (!ghes_devs)
> +		return -ENODEV;

You simply need to check force_load here.

> +	list_for_each_entry_safe(g, g_tmp, ghes_devs, elist) {
> +		ghes_edac_register(g->dev);
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette