The revision 0x300 generic error data entry is different
from the old version, but currently iterating through the
GHES estatus blocks does not take into account this difference.
This will lead to failure to get the right data entry if GHES
has revision 0x300 error data entry.
Update the GHES estatus iteration to properly increment using
iteration macro, and correct the iteration termination condition
because the status block data length only includes error data
length.
Convert the CPER estatus checking and printing iteration logic
to use same macro.
Signed-off-by: Dongjiu Geng <[email protected]>
CC: Tyler Baicar <[email protected]>
Tested-by: Tyler Baicar <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
---
change since v3:
1. update the commit message
---
drivers/acpi/apei/apei-internal.h | 5 -----
drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c | 12 ++----------
include/acpi/ghes.h | 5 +++++
3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/apei/apei-internal.h b/drivers/acpi/apei/apei-internal.h
index 6e9f14c0a71b..cb4126051f62 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/apei/apei-internal.h
+++ b/drivers/acpi/apei/apei-internal.h
@@ -120,11 +120,6 @@ int apei_exec_collect_resources(struct apei_exec_context *ctx,
struct dentry;
struct dentry *apei_get_debugfs_dir(void);
-#define apei_estatus_for_each_section(estatus, section) \
- for (section = (struct acpi_hest_generic_data *)(estatus + 1); \
- (void *)section - (void *)estatus < estatus->data_length; \
- section = (void *)(section+1) + section->error_data_length)
-
static inline u32 cper_estatus_len(struct acpi_hest_generic_status *estatus)
{
if (estatus->raw_data_length)
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c
index 48a8f69da42a..bf3672a81e49 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c
+++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c
@@ -606,7 +606,6 @@ void cper_estatus_print(const char *pfx,
const struct acpi_hest_generic_status *estatus)
{
struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata;
- unsigned int data_len;
int sec_no = 0;
char newpfx[64];
__u16 severity;
@@ -617,14 +616,10 @@ void cper_estatus_print(const char *pfx,
"It has been corrected by h/w "
"and requires no further action");
printk("%s""event severity: %s\n", pfx, cper_severity_str(severity));
- data_len = estatus->data_length;
- gdata = (struct acpi_hest_generic_data *)(estatus + 1);
snprintf(newpfx, sizeof(newpfx), "%s%s", pfx, INDENT_SP);
- while (data_len >= acpi_hest_get_size(gdata)) {
+ apei_estatus_for_each_section(estatus, gdata) {
cper_estatus_print_section(newpfx, gdata, sec_no);
- data_len -= acpi_hest_get_record_size(gdata);
- gdata = acpi_hest_get_next(gdata);
sec_no++;
}
}
@@ -653,15 +648,12 @@ int cper_estatus_check(const struct acpi_hest_generic_status *estatus)
if (rc)
return rc;
data_len = estatus->data_length;
- gdata = (struct acpi_hest_generic_data *)(estatus + 1);
- while (data_len >= acpi_hest_get_size(gdata)) {
+ apei_estatus_for_each_section(estatus, gdata) {
gedata_len = acpi_hest_get_error_length(gdata);
if (gedata_len > data_len - acpi_hest_get_size(gdata))
return -EINVAL;
-
data_len -= acpi_hest_get_record_size(gdata);
- gdata = acpi_hest_get_next(gdata);
}
if (data_len)
return -EINVAL;
diff --git a/include/acpi/ghes.h b/include/acpi/ghes.h
index 9f26e01186ae..9061c5c743b3 100644
--- a/include/acpi/ghes.h
+++ b/include/acpi/ghes.h
@@ -113,6 +113,11 @@ static inline void *acpi_hest_get_next(struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata)
return (void *)(gdata) + acpi_hest_get_record_size(gdata);
}
+#define apei_estatus_for_each_section(estatus, section) \
+ for (section = (struct acpi_hest_generic_data *)(estatus + 1); \
+ (void *)section - (void *)(estatus + 1) < estatus->data_length; \
+ section = acpi_hest_get_next(section))
+
int ghes_notify_sea(void);
#endif /* GHES_H */
--
2.14.0
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 08:07:18PM +0800, Dongjiu Geng wrote:
> The revision 0x300 generic error data entry is different
> from the old version, but currently iterating through the
> GHES estatus blocks does not take into account this difference.
> This will lead to failure to get the right data entry if GHES
> has revision 0x300 error data entry.
>
> Update the GHES estatus iteration to properly increment using
> iteration macro,
This is not what I meant - I meant:
"Update the GHES estatus iteration macro to properly increment using
acpi_hest_get_next(), and ..."
But you don't need to send another version.
Rafael, please correct that when applying, instead.
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
On Thursday, August 17, 2017 1:43:49 PM CEST Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 08:07:18PM +0800, Dongjiu Geng wrote:
> > The revision 0x300 generic error data entry is different
> > from the old version, but currently iterating through the
> > GHES estatus blocks does not take into account this difference.
> > This will lead to failure to get the right data entry if GHES
> > has revision 0x300 error data entry.
> >
> > Update the GHES estatus iteration to properly increment using
> > iteration macro,
>
> This is not what I meant - I meant:
>
> "Update the GHES estatus iteration macro to properly increment using
> acpi_hest_get_next(), and ..."
>
> But you don't need to send another version.
>
> Rafael, please correct that when applying, instead.
I will, thanks!
On Thursday, August 17, 2017 1:43:49 PM CEST Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 08:07:18PM +0800, Dongjiu Geng wrote:
> > The revision 0x300 generic error data entry is different
> > from the old version, but currently iterating through the
> > GHES estatus blocks does not take into account this difference.
> > This will lead to failure to get the right data entry if GHES
> > has revision 0x300 error data entry.
> >
> > Update the GHES estatus iteration to properly increment using
> > iteration macro,
>
> This is not what I meant - I meant:
>
> "Update the GHES estatus iteration macro to properly increment using
> acpi_hest_get_next(), and ..."
>
> But you don't need to send another version.
>
> Rafael, please correct that when applying, instead.
Well, I think I did that. :-)
Anyway, applied.
Thanks!
On 2017/8/29 4:57, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Well, I think I did that. :-)
>
> Anyway, applied.
Thanks very much to Rafael and Borislav