Re: [PATCH 3/3 v4] ACPI: extlog: Trace CPER CXL Protocol Error Section

[Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 16:54:20 +0200
"Fabio M. De Francesco" <fabio.m.de.francesco@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> When Firmware First is enabled, BIOS handles errors first and then it makes
> them available to the kernel via the Common Platform Error Record (CPER)
> sections (UEFI 2.10 Appendix N). Linux parses the CPER sections via one of
> two similar paths, either ELOG or GHES. The errors managed by ELOG are
> signaled to the BIOS by the I/O Machine Check Architecture (I/O MCA).
> 
> Currently, ELOG and GHES show some inconsistencies in how they report to
> userspace via trace events.
> 
> Therefore, make the two mentioned paths act similarly by tracing the CPER
> CXL Protocol Error Section (UEFI v2.10, Appendix N.2.13).
> 
> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <fabio.m.de.francesco@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/acpi_extlog.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/cxl/core/ras.c     |  6 ++++
>  include/cxl/event.h        |  2 ++
>  3 files changed, 70 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_extlog.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_extlog.c
> index cefe8d2d8affc..9a37b08aacfea 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_extlog.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_extlog.c
> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
>  #include <linux/ratelimit.h>
>  #include <linux/edac.h>
>  #include <linux/ras.h>
> +#include <cxl/event.h>
>  #include <acpi/ghes.h>
>  #include <asm/cpu.h>
>  #include <asm/mce.h>
> @@ -160,6 +161,60 @@ static void extlog_print_pcie(struct cper_sec_pcie *pcie_err,
>  	pci_dev_put(pdev);
>  }
>  
> +static void
> +extlog_cxl_cper_handle_prot_err(struct cxl_cper_sec_prot_err *prot_err,
> +				int severity)
> +{
> +	struct cxl_cper_prot_err_work_data wd;
> +	u8 *dvsec_start, *cap_start;


A bunch of this is identical to cxl_cper_post_prot_err()
Can we factor that stuff out for common use?

> +
> +	if (!(prot_err->valid_bits & PROT_ERR_VALID_AGENT_ADDRESS)) {
> +		pr_warn_ratelimited("CXL CPER invalid agent type\n");
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (!(prot_err->valid_bits & PROT_ERR_VALID_ERROR_LOG)) {
> +		pr_warn_ratelimited("CXL CPER invalid protocol error log\n");
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (prot_err->err_len != sizeof(struct cxl_ras_capability_regs)) {
> +		pr_warn_ratelimited("CXL CPER invalid RAS Cap size (%u)\n",
> +				    prot_err->err_len);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	if ((prot_err->agent_type == RCD || prot_err->agent_type == DEVICE ||
> +	     prot_err->agent_type == LD || prot_err->agent_type == FMLD) &&
> +	    !(prot_err->valid_bits & PROT_ERR_VALID_SERIAL_NUMBER))
> +		pr_warn_ratelimited(FW_WARN
> +				    "CXL CPER no device serial number\n");

Whilst some of this check isn't present in cxl_cper_post_prot_err(), it should
be harmless.

> +
> +	switch (prot_err->agent_type) {
> +	case RCD:
> +	case DEVICE:
> +	case LD:
> +	case FMLD:
> +	case RP:
> +	case DSP:
> +	case USP:
> +		memcpy(&wd.prot_err, prot_err, sizeof(wd.prot_err));
> +
> +		dvsec_start = (u8 *)(prot_err + 1);
> +		cap_start = dvsec_start + prot_err->dvsec_len;
> +
> +		memcpy(&wd.ras_cap, cap_start, sizeof(wd.ras_cap));
> +		wd.severity = cper_severity_to_aer(severity);
> +		break;
> +	default:
> +		pr_err_ratelimited("CXL CPER reserved agent type: %d\n",
> +				   prot_err->agent_type);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	cxl_cper_ras_handle_prot_err(&wd);
> +}