Re: [PATCH v6 14/18] ACPI / APEI: Split ghes_read_estatus() to read CPER length

Borislav Petkov
2018-10-12T17:25:42Z

On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 11:17:01PM +0100, James Morse wrote:
> ghes_read_estatus() reads the record address, then the record's
> header, then performs some sanity checks before reading the
> records into the provided estatus buffer.
>
> We either need to know the size of the records before we call
> ghes_read_estatus(), or always provide a worst-case sized buffer,
> as happens today.
>
> Add a function to peek at the record's header to find the size. This
> will let the NMI path allocate the right amount of memory before reading
> the records, instead of using the worst-case size, and having to copy
> the records.
>
> Split ghes_read_estatus() to create ghes_peek_estatus() which
> returns the address and size of the CPER records.
>
> Signed-off-by: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
> index 3028487d43a3..055176ed68ac 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
> @@ -298,11 +298,12 @@ static void ghes_copy_tofrom_phys(void *buffer, u64 paddr, u32 len,
> }
> }
>
> -static int ghes_read_estatus(struct ghes *ghes,
> - struct acpi_hest_generic_status *estatus,
> - u64 *buf_paddr, int fixmap_idx)
> +/* read the CPER block returning its address and size */

Make that comment a proper sentence:

"./* ... Read the CPER ... and size. */

> +static int ghes_peek_estatus(struct ghes *ghes, int fixmap_idx,
> + u64 *buf_paddr, u32 *buf_len)
> {

I find the functionality split a bit strange:

ghes_peek_estatus() does peek *and* verify sizes. The latter belongs
maybe better in ghes_read_estatus(). Together with the
cper_estatus_check_header() call. Or maybe into a separate

__ghes_check_estatus()

to separate it all nicely.

> struct acpi_hest_generic *g = ghes->generic;
> + struct acpi_hest_generic_status estatus;
> u32 len;
> int rc;
>
> @@ -317,26 +318,23 @@ static int ghes_read_estatus(struct ghes *ghes,
> if (!*buf_paddr)
> return -ENOENT;
>
> - ghes_copy_tofrom_phys(estatus, *buf_paddr,
> - sizeof(*estatus), 1, fixmap_idx);
> - if (!estatus->block_status) {
> + ghes_copy_tofrom_phys(&estatus, *buf_paddr,
> + sizeof(estatus), 1, fixmap_idx);
> + if (!estatus.block_status) {
> *buf_paddr = 0;
> return -ENOENT;
> }
>
> rc = -EIO;
> - len = cper_estatus_len(estatus);
> - if (len < sizeof(*estatus))
> + len = cper_estatus_len(&estatus);
> + if (len < sizeof(estatus))
> goto err_read_block;
> if (len > ghes->generic->error_block_length)
> goto err_read_block;
> - if (cper_estatus_check_header(estatus))
> - goto err_read_block;
> - ghes_copy_tofrom_phys(estatus + 1,
> - *buf_paddr + sizeof(*estatus),
> - len - sizeof(*estatus), 1, fixmap_idx);
> - if (cper_estatus_check(estatus))
> + if (cper_estatus_check_header(&estatus))
> goto err_read_block;
> + *buf_len = len;
> +
> rc = 0;
>
> err_read_block:
> @@ -346,6 +344,35 @@ static int ghes_read_estatus(struct ghes *ghes,
> return rc;
> }
>
> +static int __ghes_read_estatus(struct acpi_hest_generic_status *estatus,
> + u64 buf_paddr, size_t buf_len,
> + int fixmap_idx)
> +{
> + ghes_copy_tofrom_phys(estatus, buf_paddr, buf_len, 1, fixmap_idx);
> + if (cper_estatus_check(estatus)) {
> + if (printk_ratelimit())
> + pr_warning(FW_WARN GHES_PFX
> + "Failed to read error status block!\n");

Then you won't have to have two identical messages:

"Failed to read error status block!\n"

which, when one sees them, is hard to figure out where exactly in the
code that happened.

> + return -EIO;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int ghes_read_estatus(struct ghes *ghes,
> + struct acpi_hest_generic_status *estatus,
> + u64 *buf_paddr, int fixmap_idx)
> +{
> + int rc;
> + u32 buf_len;
> +
> + rc = ghes_peek_estatus(ghes, fixmap_idx, buf_paddr, &buf_len);

Also, if we have a __ghes_read_estatus() helper now, maybe prefixing
ghes_peek_estatus() with "__" would make sense too...

--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.