Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210210000259.635748-1-ben.widawsky@intel.com>
 <20210210000259.635748-7-ben.widawsky@intel.com> <20210211120215.00007d3d@Huawei.com>
 <20210211174502.72thmdqlh2q5tdu3@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210211174502.72thmdqlh2q5tdu3@intel.com>
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 Feb 2021 12:34:35 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4iXYxTc5uu7Jq0=X9C0+5QW8ZbnwebhWAw5c2DhwqY72Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/8] cxl/mem: Enable commands via CEL
To:     Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
        linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org, Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
        Linux PCI <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>,
        Chris Browy <cbrowy@avery-design.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
        Jon Masters <jcm@jonmasters.org>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
        "John Groves (jgroves)" <jgroves@micron.com>,
        "Kelley, Sean V" <sean.v.kelley@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 9:45 AM Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com> wrote:
[..]
> > > +   if (mbox_cmd.size_out > sizeof(gsl)) {
> > > +           dev_warn(dev, "%zu excess logs\n",
> > > +                    (mbox_cmd.size_out - sizeof(gsl)) /
> > > +                            sizeof(struct gsl_entry));
> >
> > This could well happen given spec seems to allow for other
> > entries defined by other specs.
>
> Interesting. When I read the spec before (multiple times) I was certain it said
> other UUIDs aren't allowed. You're correct though that the way it is worded,
> this is a bad check. AIUI, the spec permits any UUID and as such I think we
> should remove tainting for unknown UUIDs. Let me put the exact words:
>
> Table 169 & 170
> "Log Identifier: UUID representing the log to retrieve data for. The following
>  Log Identifier UUIDs are defined in this specification"
>
> To me this implies UUIDs from other (not "this") specifications are permitted.
>
> Dan, I'd like your opinion here. I'm tempted to change the current WARN to a
> dev_dbg or somesuch.

Yeah, sounds ok, and the command is well defined to be a read-only,
zero-side-effect affair. If a vendor did really want to sneak in a
proprietary protocol over this interface it would be quite awkward.