linux-kernel - Re: [HW PROBLEM] Intel I7 MCE. Erratum or not?

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

Message-ID: <12bfabe40812061416u1b6f800dn7261beae5ce36b2f@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 6 Dec 2008 23:16:29 +0100
From:	"Giangiacomo Mariotti" <gg.mariotti@...il.com>
To:	"Robert Hancock" <hancockr@...w.ca>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [HW PROBLEM] Intel I7 MCE. Erratum or not?

On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 10:47 PM, Robert Hancock <hancockr@...w.ca> wrote:
> Giangiacomo Mariotti wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Robert Hancock <hancockr@...w.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> Giangiacomo Mariotti wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>> Mcelog just logged on my new Intel I7 920 (on Linux 2.6.27.8) this :
>>>> MCE 0
>>>> HARDWARE ERROR. This is *NOT* a software problem!
>>>> Please contact your hardware vendor
>>>> CPU 0 BANK 6 MISC 202d ADDR ffeef740
>>>> MCG status:
>>>> MCi status:
>>>> Error overflow
>>>> Uncorrected error
>>>> MCi_MISC register valid
>>>> MCi_ADDR register valid
>>>> Processor context corrupt
>>>> MCA: Generic CACHE Level-2 Data-Write Error
>>>> STATUS ee0000000100014a MCGSTATUS 0
>>>>
>>>> I'm reporting this here, because I found in the Intel I7 Technical
>>>> Specification November 2008 update that something which seems very
>>>> similar is in fact an erratum. So my question is : Is there any way
>>>> for me to verify that my problem is due to one of those errata,instead
>>>> of a broken hardware(if we don't want to consider all those errata as
>>>> broken hardware)? I'm also reporting this because I thought it may be
>>>> useful to signal that(if actually due to those errata) these problems
>>>> actually occur, so it may be useful to find workarounds in the kernel
>>>> to not scare to death poor Linux users!
>>>
>>> Which erratum are you talking about? I don't see one in that document
>>> that
>>> would match this case..
>>>
>> Well, the first one seems very similar, even if it talks about a dtlb
>> error instead of cache error. But sure,being similar doesn't mean too
>> much. Number 52 seems similar too. I guess I should just give up and
>> admit that my hardware is broken!
>>
>
> The first one is just indicating that if a DTLB error occurs the overflow
> bit may be set incorrectly. It's not a false error though. The AAJ52 erratum
> would only occur immediately after powerup or wake from sleep states.
>
The mce actually got logged once immediately after powerup and never
more. Is that reasonable? A cache error which happens just once after
boot?
--
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/