Re: [PATCH] cxl/mbox: Fix CEL logic for poison and security commands

[Davidlohr Bueso]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2023, Dan Williams wrote:

> Ira Weiny wrote:
> > The following debug output was observed while testing CXL
> >
> > cxl_core:cxl_walk_cel:721: cxl_mock_mem cxl_mem.0: Opcode 0x4300 unsupported by driver
> >
> > opcode 0x4300 (Get Poison) is supported by the driver and the mock
> > device supports it.  The logic should be checking that the opcode is
> > both not poison and not security.
> >
> > Fix the logic to allow poison and security commands.
> >
> > Fixes: ad64f5952ce3 ("cxl/memdev: Only show sanitize sysfs files when supported")
> > Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/cxl/core/mbox.c | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cxl/core/mbox.c b/drivers/cxl/core/mbox.c
> > index ca60bb8114f2..b315bdab9197 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cxl/core/mbox.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cxl/core/mbox.c
> > @@ -716,8 +716,8 @@ static void cxl_walk_cel(struct cxl_memdev_state *mds, size_t size, u8 *cel)
> >  		u16 opcode = le16_to_cpu(cel_entry[i].opcode);
> >  		struct cxl_mem_command *cmd = cxl_mem_find_command(opcode);
> >
> > -		if (!cmd && (!cxl_is_poison_command(opcode) ||
> > -			     !cxl_is_security_command(opcode))) {
> > +		if (!cmd && !cxl_is_poison_command(opcode) &&
> > +		    !cxl_is_security_command(opcode)) {
>
> Given that this is going to be a recurring pattern to add optional
> command support, I am not a fan of continuing to expand this boolean
> algebra eye exam.
>
> How about the following to only do the validation check and enabling in
> one place:

Agreed.

Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

... this also is a reminder of the need for regression testing/CI.

Thanks,
Davidlohr