linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/MCE/AMD: Always give PANIC severity for UC errors in kernel context

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:   Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:26:35 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>
Cc:     "linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/MCE/AMD: Always give PANIC severity for UC errors in
 kernel context

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 03:17:51PM +0000, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> Generally, we can use the IN_KERNEL_RECOV context to show that the error
> is recoverable versus IN_KERNEL which we can consider unrecoverable.
> 
> Specifically, the Intel SER and AMD SUCCOR features represent the same
> thing (MCA Recovery). I'll send another patch for enabling recovery on
> AMD SUCCOR systems. I want to keep this patch as just a bug fix.

Ok, but then do not mention IN_KERNEL_RECOV here as it only confuses: is
it a recoverable error or is it not? /me scratches head...

> Sure, I'll do this in another patch. I want to keep this as a bug fix
> to apply to the stable branches.

Sure.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.