linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [0/10] Use 64bit x86 machine check code for 32bit too v2

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 08 Jul 2008 12:54:49 -0700
From:	Max Asbock <masbock@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...nel.org>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [0/10] Use 64bit x86 machine check code for 32bit too
	v2

This patch set builds fine. I booted it and started some preliminary
testing by injecting errors through software. So far it looks good.

Max

On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 16:53 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Applied to -tip as x86/unify-mce.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 	-hpa
> 
> 
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> > This patchkit uses the 64bit machine check code which is better in many
> > ways on 32bit x86 too. This is also the basis for some future machine
> > check work.
> > 
> > The 64bit machine check code is in many ways much better than 
> > the 32bit machine check code: it is more specification compliant,
> > is cleaner, only has a single code base versus one per CPU, 
> > has better infrastructure for recovery, has a cleaner way to communicate
> > with user space etc. etc.
> > 
> > It requires testing especially on older systems (on newer
> > ones it should be already tested well in 64bit systems). 
> > 
> > The patchkit contains several parts:
> > - It ports over a few needed quirks (for older Intel and older
> > AMD CPUs) to the 64bit kernel.
> > - It changes the 64bit code to be 32bit clean in its data structures
> > (mostly just unsigned long -> u64 where needed) 
> > - It drops some unused functionality that cannot be easily implemented on 32bit
> > and didn't seem worth ifdefing
> > 
> > Tested by doing some software level error injection on a few
> > different machines
> > 
> > I request this code is merged into the appropiate tree for linux-next
> > for wider testing. It's not .27 ready, but hopefully .28, but it requires
> > wider exposure now.
> > 
> > v2: Fix compilation problems noted by hpa in some configurations
> >     Fix strict_strtoul() conversion
> > 
> > -Andi 
> > 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/