Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 4 Jul 2022 12:15:29 +0100
From:   Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@atomlin.com>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc:     Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>, tglx@linutronix.de,
        mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
        joro@8bytes.org, will@kernel.org, dwmw2@infradead.org,
        baolu.lu@linux.intel.com, hpa@zytor.com,
        iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] iommu/vt-d: Show region type in
 arch_rmrr_sanity_check()
Message-ID: <20220704111529.6pdlueeu2beo64ha@ava.usersys.com>
References: <20220611204859.234975-1-atomlin@redhat.com>
 <20220611204859.234975-3-atomlin@redhat.com>
 <99632b76-3039-34a5-7615-b25e716e2621@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <99632b76-3039-34a5-7615-b25e716e2621@arm.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon 2022-07-04 11:39 +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2022-06-11 21:48, Aaron Tomlin wrote:
> > This patch will attempt to describe the region type in the event
> > that a given RMRR entry is not within a reserved region.
> 
> Hmm, is this useful information for the user? You'd hope the firmware vendor
> knows the memory map already, but either way, is it particularly likely that
> anyone would be noticing and caring about this warning in a context where
> they couldn't just scroll further up the log and cross-reference the full
> memory map listing? If so, it might be worth clarifying what that use-case
> is, since as it stands there doesn't seem to be much justification for the
> "why" here.

Hi Robin,

Thanks for looking at this.

Honestly, the only justification for the modification/or proposed changes
is to have more insight when this statement is provided in total isolation
and the RAM map listing (as per e820__print_table()) is no longer available
to reference.

> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c b/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c
> > index 95b994cf80cd..165e9a444bb9 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c
> > @@ -1073,7 +1073,7 @@ void __init e820__finish_early_params(void)
> >   const char *__init e820_type_to_string(struct e820_entry *entry)
> >   {
> > -	switch (entry->type) {
> > +	switch (entry && entry->type) {
> 
> Have you tested this for anything other than E820_TYPE_RAM? I think
> sufficiently up-to-date compilers should warn you here anyway.

I have not.


Kind regards,

-- 
Aaron Tomlin