Re: [PATCH V6 03/10] efi: parse ARM processor error

From: Baicar, Tyler
Date: Thu Jan 05 2017 - 16:18:14 EST

Next message: Santosh Shilimkar: "Re: [PATCH v2] soc: ti: Drop wait from wkup_m3_rproc_boot_thread"
Previous message: Stephen Rothwell: "Re: Please add fbdev-for-next to linux-next"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On 12/15/2016 7:08 AM, James Morse wrote:

Hi Tyler,

On 07/12/16 21:48, Tyler Baicar wrote:

Add support for ARM Common Platform Error Record (CPER).
UEFI 2.6 specification adds support for ARM specific
processor error information to be reported as part of the
CPER records. This provides more detail on for processor error logs.

Looks good to me, a few minor comments below.

Reviewed-by: James Morse <james.morse@xxxxxxx>

Thanks!

diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c
index 8fa4e23..1ac2572 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c
+++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c
@@ -184,6 +199,110 @@ static void cper_print_proc_generic(const char *pfx,
printk("%s""IP: 0x%016llx\n", pfx, proc->ip);
}
+static void cper_print_proc_arm(const char *pfx,
+ const struct cper_sec_proc_arm *proc)
+{
+ int i, len, max_ctx_type;
+ struct cper_arm_err_info *err_info;
+ struct cper_arm_ctx_info *ctx_info;
+ char newpfx[64];
+
+ printk("%ssection length: %d\n", pfx, proc->section_length);

Compared to the rest of the file, this:

printk("%s""section length: %d\n", pfx, proc->section_length);

would be more in keeping. I guess its done this way to avoid some spurious
warning about %ssection not being recognised by printk().

Makes sense, I'll make this change next patchset.

+ printk("%sMIDR: 0x%016llx\n", pfx, proc->midr);
+
+ len = proc->section_length - (sizeof(*proc) +
+ proc->err_info_num * (sizeof(*err_info)));
+ if (len < 0) {
+ printk("%ssection length is too small\n", pfx);

This calculation is all based on values in the 'struct cper_sec_proc_arm', is it
worth making more noise about how the firmware-generated record is incorrectly
formatted? If we see this message its not the kernel's fault!

I can make the print more clear saying that the firmware-generated record is incorrect to make
it clear it is not a kernel issue.

+ printk("%sERR_INFO_NUM is %d\n", pfx, proc->err_info_num);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ if (proc->validation_bits & CPER_ARM_VALID_MPIDR)
+ printk("%sMPIDR: 0x%016llx\n", pfx, proc->mpidr);
+ if (proc->validation_bits & CPER_ARM_VALID_AFFINITY_LEVEL)
+ printk("%serror affinity level: %d\n", pfx,
+ proc->affinity_level);
+ if (proc->validation_bits & CPER_ARM_VALID_RUNNING_STATE) {
+ printk("%srunning state: %d\n", pfx, proc->running_state);

This field is described as a bit field in table 260, can we print it as 0x%lx in
case additional bits are set?

Yes, will do.

+ printk("%sPSCI state: %d\n", pfx, proc->psci_state);
+ }
+
+ snprintf(newpfx, sizeof(newpfx), "%s%s", pfx, INDENT_SP);
+
+ err_info = (struct cper_arm_err_info *)(proc + 1);
+ for (i = 0; i < proc->err_info_num; i++) {
+ printk("%sError info structure %d:\n", pfx, i);
+ printk("%sversion:%d\n", newpfx, err_info->version);
+ printk("%slength:%d\n", newpfx, err_info->length);
+ if (err_info->validation_bits &
+ CPER_ARM_INFO_VALID_MULTI_ERR) {
+ if (err_info->multiple_error == 0)
+ printk("%ssingle error\n", newpfx);
+ else if (err_info->multiple_error == 1)
+ printk("%smultiple errors\n", newpfx);
+ else
+ printk("%smultiple errors count:%d\n",
+ newpfx, err_info->multiple_error);

This is described as unsigned in table 261.

Will change.

+ }
+ if (err_info->validation_bits & CPER_ARM_INFO_VALID_FLAGS) {
+ if (err_info->flags & CPER_ARM_INFO_FLAGS_FIRST)
+ printk("%sfirst error captured\n", newpfx);
+ if (err_info->flags & CPER_ARM_INFO_FLAGS_LAST)
+ printk("%slast error captured\n", newpfx);
+ if (err_info->flags & CPER_ARM_INFO_FLAGS_PROPAGATED)
+ printk("%spropagated error captured\n",
+ newpfx);

Table 261 also has an 'overflow' bit in flags. It may be worth printing a
warning if this is set:

Note: Overflow bit indicates that firmware/hardware error
buffers had experience an overflow, and it is possible that
some error information has been lost.

I will add that in.

+ }
+ printk("%serror_type: %d, %s\n", newpfx, err_info->type,
+ err_info->type < ARRAY_SIZE(proc_error_type_strs) ?
+ proc_error_type_strs[err_info->type] : "unknown");
+ if (err_info->validation_bits & CPER_ARM_INFO_VALID_ERR_INFO)
+ printk("%serror_info: 0x%016llx\n", newpfx,
+ err_info->error_info);
+ if (err_info->validation_bits & CPER_ARM_INFO_VALID_VIRT_ADDR)
+ printk("%svirtual fault address: 0x%016llx\n",
+ newpfx, err_info->virt_fault_addr);
+ if (err_info->validation_bits &
+ CPER_ARM_INFO_VALID_PHYSICAL_ADDR)
+ printk("%sphysical fault address: 0x%016llx\n",
+ newpfx, err_info->physical_fault_addr);
+ err_info += 1;
+ }
+ ctx_info = (struct cper_arm_ctx_info *)err_info;
+ max_ctx_type = (sizeof(arm_reg_ctx_strs) /
+ sizeof(arm_reg_ctx_strs[0]) - 1);

ARRAY_SIZE() - 1?

I'll use ARRAY_SIZE in the next patchset.

+ for (i = 0; i < proc->context_info_num; i++) {
+ int size = sizeof(*ctx_info) + ctx_info->size;
+
+ printk("%sContext info structure %d:\n", pfx, i);
+ if (len < size) {
+ printk("%ssection length is too small\n", newpfx);
+ return;
+ }
+ if (ctx_info->type > max_ctx_type) {
+ printk("%sInvalid context type: %d\n", newpfx,
+ ctx_info->type);
+ printk("%sMax context type: %d\n", newpfx,
+ max_ctx_type);
+ return;
+ }
+ printk("%sregister context type %d: %s\n", newpfx,
+ ctx_info->type, arm_reg_ctx_strs[ctx_info->type]);
+ print_hex_dump(newpfx, "", DUMP_PREFIX_OFFSET, 16, 4,
+ (ctx_info + 1), ctx_info->size, 0);
+ len -= size;
+ ctx_info = (struct cper_arm_ctx_info *)((long)ctx_info + size);
+ }
+
+ if (len > 0) {
+ printk("%sVendor specific error info has %d bytes:\n", pfx,
+ len);

%u - just in case it is surprisingly large!

Will do.

+ print_hex_dump(newpfx, "", DUMP_PREFIX_OFFSET, 16, 4, ctx_info,
+ len, 0);
+ }
+}
+
static const char * const mem_err_type_strs[] = {
"unknown",
"no error",
@@ -458,6 +577,15 @@ static void cper_estatus_print_section(
cper_print_pcie(newpfx, pcie, gdata);
else
goto err_section_too_small;
+ } else if (!uuid_le_cmp(*sec_type, CPER_SEC_PROC_ARM)) {
+ struct cper_sec_proc_arm *arm_err;
+
+ arm_err = acpi_hest_generic_data_payload(gdata);
+ printk("%ssection_type: ARM processor error\n", newpfx);
+ if (gdata->error_data_length >= sizeof(*arm_err))
+ cper_print_proc_arm(newpfx, arm_err);
+ else
+ goto err_section_too_small;
} else
printk("%s""section type: unknown, %pUl\n", newpfx, sec_type);

This is the only processor-specific entry in this function,
CPER_SEC_PROC_{IA,IPF} don't appear anywhere else in the tree.

Is it worth adding an (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64) || IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM)) in
the if()? This would let the compiler remove cper_print_proc_arm(() on x86/ia64
systems which won't ever see a record of this type.

Yes, I can add that.

Thank you for the feedback!

-Tyler

--
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

Next message: Santosh Shilimkar: "Re: [PATCH v2] soc: ti: Drop wait from wkup_m3_rproc_boot_thread"
Previous message: Stephen Rothwell: "Re: Please add fbdev-for-next to linux-next"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]