Re: [PATCH] PCI/AER: Iterate over error counters instead of error

Mohamed Khalfella
2022-06-04T20:30:35Z

On 6/3/22 16:58, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 10:12:47PM +0000, Mohamed Khalfella wrote:
>> Is there any chance for this to land in 5.19?
>
> Too late for v5.19, since the merge window will end in a couple days.
> Remind me again if you don't see it in -next by v5.20-rc5 or so.
>

Thank you. I will keep an eye on -next.

>> On 5/10/22 14:17, Mohamed Khalfella wrote:
>>>> Thanks for catching this; it definitely looks like a real issue! I
>>>> guess you're probably seeing junk in the sysfs files?
>>>
>>> That is correct. The initial report was seeing junk when reading sysfs
>>> files. As descibed, this is happening because we reading data past the
>>> end of the stats counters array.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think maybe we should populate the currently NULL entries in the
>>>> string[] arrays and simplify the code here, e.g.,
>>>>
>>>> static const char *aer_correctable_error_string[] = {
>>>> "RxErr", /* Bit Position 0 */
>>>> "dev_cor_errs_bit[1]",
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> if (stats[i])
>>>> len += sysfs_emit_at(buf, len, "%s %llu\n", strings_array[i], stats[i]);
>>>
>>> Doing it this way will change the output format. In this case we will show
>>> stats only if their value is greater than zero. The current code shows all the
>>> stats those have names (regardless of their value) plus those have non-zero
>>> values.
>>>
>>>>> @@ -1342,6 +1342,11 @@ static int aer_probe(struct pcie_device *dev)
>>>>> struct device *device = &dev->device;
>>>>> struct pci_dev *port = dev->port;
>>>>>
>>>>> + BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(aer_correctable_error_string) <
>>>>> + AER_MAX_TYPEOF_COR_ERRS);
>>>>> + BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(aer_uncorrectable_error_string) <
>>>>> + AER_MAX_TYPEOF_UNCOR_ERRS);
>>>>
>>>> And make these check for "!=" instead of "<".
>>
>> I am happy to remove these BUILD_BUG_ON() if you think it is a good
>> idea to do so.
>
> I think it's good to enforce correctness there somehow, so let's leave
> them there unless somebody has a better idea.
>
>>> This will require unnecessarily extending stats arrays to have 32 entries
>>> in order to match names arrays. If you don't feel strogly about changing
>>> "<" to "!=", I prefer to keep the code as it is.