Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:3;
Date:   Tue, 17 Oct 2023 19:41:38 -0700
From:   Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
To:     Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@huawei.com>,
        Smita Koralahalli <Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@amd.com>
CC:     Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
        Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
        "Ard Biesheuvel" <ardb@kernel.org>, <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] firmware/efi: Process CXL Component Events
Message-ID: <652f45e29915c_2bb07d2949b@iweiny-mobl.notmuch>
References: <20230601-cxl-cper-v1-0-99ba43f8f770@intel.com>
 <20230601-cxl-cper-v1-1-99ba43f8f770@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230601-cxl-cper-v1-1-99ba43f8f770@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount: 1
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0: =?us-ascii?Q?Bg3qo/hBW3efdh8gTKAperE1rG2QkHkinS1VTrgbSb15R0ecS3rKB08x59ae?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?/larY0p01V3fyMOiEtvB0+0JML20vC8zP8vaXDh3TipyTT5smtIuFWx9lpmr?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?IXfbX6tjvDhOR82NIiH35uzIU/hlgXi4CQn6hf7ptBuds3kO3hAFDgFYyYDL?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?jq7YFbBguk8EYyWAUk5X3a28uiuSKcEU2qUkFM8XhO1zN43cTag5q8Xcbu4O?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?wh0l5Dp36RFF7K1FLpgmYp3iQfcXvmtISWaCmb3EBGNdZE46EcU0qAXbWjo0?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?a/3unH8tObWFEyG2VREcv5/2ZdXW6GBE3J7eZdM2dfavewFvlc8VHgIO/A06?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?TjB64NR2e3Wuq78fbP0RRqM9f7bF+v4adoRAUyh5Zo8EhLKyYJdl9x1UficK?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?BnsHeZPzzm68uz5mCRew952JGmTYAx9fQ4hvwvdEzdBgn3HRhjOrzmB12SAY?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?y58PfZxS9UwQxINui7AzLG0EkuYWCB7S21AAf/1d0RQGHz/xY7o8AHVMRUPK?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?4vH0lSgbkNnSgykrAXLTbzQyEzap4L42SP1/ye0v/pEep/7sqwSSy3DUxnuA?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?jXmRrPeJNtkV85S2USMFBysNTtrf/La9udoAKX545glTtch6XIFMEBu+ZhdT?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?e7M2lRT2B40qFdBT4qM1lvj0SQyOsCQMzC20PXv64ns5jV50Chh1vo+S5R1z?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?P8NUL3Qo0HMRcsB8Hda1XxHcbcyCqErIHxzIES1oFt7xieG2K3JrgHXsSu/b?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?hg+EofGoHb6Nq8QJm6KKZBjGzfg8iA1hK2yJfFllwO6TqWhDYKWOgNwE8eow?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Mw1GPVIkrwd0IJ40Fe77Gur7ABVP2nvjSEQFhOxxZYhYPLXhiaJbXukYVRI+?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?yKHqSWsCJAd4DuUTMgLKR9xpcBdESAD45RhpMTQyS2WoWut7lWaRCe+b4wdP?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?shVH/zY1hkUd8kYy0+xzXW2u2pkl/vvYkMKynzuvnMRtm3HYHbOeulRHWP9R?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?a5fk8m6yjEcXiV8q+O8mSQlNqDubxEZ2fKc56LsMxsSokrOOvAbLXXDDa1Ju?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?TVmATsmMR//S4duYfuF7DWVdQ/Fod7uf72ozEciT6xmA45E2ZrctnGSCAhre?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?01HjpwdcF8f8YFeK80rwi2++4smoVIp5Z73dtg4uMygwfWbg/oAzgV82DE2g?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Oj50bXM+G/fYlqhUcfIEOHA1Aog3qTZFPRHGRZMn8Wzb9DeZrHzU6r03DcIk?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?OxmqOHsBuxp9i4yx3ra32vWidevhakDZYDWSB2YrHmix7wuaYLlDAhk6KwHJ?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?l/LotWBXpkYBVU5UbD/x0tTy6CQAgiCxbemzYR4eLkVeRFDKMevtDJddIUPL?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?3MGupRV+9FafiUf0d2oyDSq4rpYEhPqfkShjvoNHyew4c54eoTebpKpwrSWj?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?RRrjcNmpriKNPKq+0yiato6BFPCteN38btHKMlurtmYHW7IfhJKHaNdjLzDi?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?RKTIfHZ9jZo0dwO9jBHJBuS93tS8fE8FgDX6CrUtGjiXyTyI1oR6b4OtZsCo?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?FKyUZcAhjuIqWz2h1n/l+wMBjhnRlw1VPEJXkaDu?=
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b3134174-74ea-4c25-a920-08dbcf83c204
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: SA1PR11MB6733.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Oct 2023 02:41:40.7460
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 46c98d88-e344-4ed4-8496-4ed7712e255d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: a+Wm+yJmNB54pRwykR/FCXZW24ga+HSl0amVSyNOwK2ER+IwgUxnDL1GcC/VQOw730AuLRZKI3yi3b8EZGD+Qg==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SA2PR11MB4843
X-OriginatorOrg: intel.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lipwig.vger.email
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.4 (lipwig.vger.email [0.0.0.0]); Tue, 17 Oct 2023 19:42:13 -0700 (PDT)

Ira Weiny wrote:
> 

[snip]

> ---
> RFC comments:
> I'm still not sure if the 'CXL Component Event Log' portion of the CPER
> record includes the UUID from the CXL Common Event Record Format.
> 
> The 2.10 version of the UEFI spec says:
> 
> "For the CXL Component Event Log: Refer to the Common Event Record field
> (Offset 16) of the Events Record Format for each CXL component."
> 
> This implies that the first 16 bytes (the UUID) is not included.  It
> would be nice if the UUID were included there as a copy of what would
> normally be in the CXL event log.  If so the Section Type GUID could be
> used solely to match for a CXL record and ignored in the CXL code.
> 
> For now convert the GUID to UUID and pass to the notifier users.

Smita,

Dan and I were discussing the processing of these GUIDs vs the UUIDs offline.

> 
> Smita, Another idea I had was to add your cper_print_comp_event()
> function to the dump here to capture that CPER specific data in the EFI
> log.
> ---
>  drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c     | 16 ++++++++++++++
>  drivers/firmware/efi/cper_cxl.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/firmware/efi/cper_cxl.h | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  include/linux/efi.h             | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  4 files changed, 133 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c
> index 35c37f667781..af2c59f5e21d 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c
> @@ -607,6 +607,22 @@ cper_estatus_print_section(const char *pfx, struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata
>  			cper_print_prot_err(newpfx, prot_err);
>  		else
>  			goto err_section_too_small;
> +	} else if (guid_equal(sec_type, &gen_media_event_guid) ||
> +		   guid_equal(sec_type, &dram_event_guid) ||
> +		   guid_equal(sec_type, &mem_mod_event_guid)) {
> +		struct cper_cxl_event_rec *rec = acpi_hest_get_payload(gdata);
> +

Here we could separate out the comparisons and use a token for the event types
rather than passing the guid through to be converted into a uuid...

> +		printk("%ssection type: CXL Event\n", newpfx);
> +
> +		if (rec->hdr.length <= sizeof(rec->hdr))
> +			goto err_section_too_small;
> +
> +		if (rec->hdr.length > sizeof(*rec)) {
> +			pr_err(FW_WARN "error section length is too big\n");
> +			return;
> +		}
> +
> +		cper_post_cxl_event(newpfx, sec_type, rec);
>  	} else {
>  		const void *err = acpi_hest_get_payload(gdata);
>  
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper_cxl.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper_cxl.c
> index a55771b99a97..9b1a64ed542e 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper_cxl.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper_cxl.c
> @@ -187,3 +187,42 @@ void cper_print_prot_err(const char *pfx, const struct cper_sec_prot_err *prot_e
>  			       sizeof(cxl_ras->header_log), 0);
>  	}
>  }
> +
> +/* CXL CPER notifier chain */
> +static BLOCKING_NOTIFIER_HEAD(cxl_cper_chain_head);
> +
> +void cper_post_cxl_event(const char *pfx, guid_t *guid, struct cper_cxl_event_rec *rec)
> +{
> +	struct cxl_cper_notifier_data nd = {
> +		.rec = rec,
> +	};
> +	char guid_str[UUID_STRING_LEN + 1]; /* + trailing NULL */
> +
> +	if (!(rec->hdr.validation_bits & CPER_CXL_COMP_EVENT_LOG_VALID)) {
> +		pr_err(FW_WARN "cxl event no Compoent Event Log present\n");
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	snprintf(guid_str, UUID_STRING_LEN + 1, "%pU", guid);
> +	if (uuid_parse(guid_str, &nd.uuid))
> +		pr_err(FW_WARN "cxl event uuid conversion failed\n");

Thus this conversion is unnecessary.

> +
> +	pr_info("%s cxl event guid %pU, uuid %pU\n", pfx, guid, &nd.uuid);
> +
> +	if (blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cxl_cper_chain_head, 0, (void *)&nd)
> +			== NOTIFY_BAD)
> +		pr_err(FW_WARN "cxl event notifier chain failed\n");
> +}
> +

But this will mean that the trace events will have no uuid printed (probably
not a big deal as the trace point itself has that information).

(This would change the 2nd patch as it would no longer be getting a uuid.)

Thoughts?

Ira


[snip]