linux-kernel - RE: [Xen-devel] [xen vMCE RFC V0.2] xen vMCE design

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]

Date:	Mon, 2 Jul 2012 17:32:42 +0000
From:	"Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@...el.com>
To:	Christoph Egger <Christoph.Egger@....com>
CC:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
	"Auld, Will" <will.auld@...el.com>,
	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, Keir Fraser <keir@....org>,
	"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
	"Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@...el.com>,
	"Li, Susie" <susie.li@...el.com>,
	"Shan, Haitao" <haitao.shan@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Dugger, Donald D" <donald.d.dugger@...el.com>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	"Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
	"Zhang, Xiantao" <xiantao.zhang@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [xen vMCE RFC V0.2] xen vMCE design

Thanks AMD's feedback :)

This vMCE design foils is basically for Intel MCA, involving many details specific to Intel.
I agree that for x86 Intel and AMD can share logic in many fields. However, for MCA logic Intel and AMD are quite different, like
1. MSRs interface, e.g. MCG_CAP, MCi_MICS, MCi_CTL2, etc;
2. error injection, AMD provide NMI/single MCE/broadcast MCE, while in our design only concern broadcast MCE# (and pretend to expose CMCI);
3. MCE handler: currently in xen Intel and AMD mce use different triggle method and mce handler;

Considering the big difference, I suggest we separately provide Intel vMCE and AMD vMCE (i.e. vmce_intel.c and vmce_amd.c).

Thanks,
Jinsong

Christoph Egger wrote:
> Feedback from the AMD side:
> 
> slide 2:
> - PV guests are supposed to install a MCE trap handler
>   which reads the MSR values from struct mcinfo_bank.
>   Hence it is unclear where the #GP should come from.
>   Same for HVM guests which have a PV MCE "driver"
>   (those are very rare in reality).
> 
> slide 3:
> - unclear what "Weird per-domain MSRs" means
> - unclear what "Unnatural MCE injection semantics" means
> 
> slide 4:
> - typo: interace -> interface :-)
> - enable UCR-related capabilities, but only on Intel machines
> - Filter non-SRAO/SRAR banks:
>   Rename it to "Let guest see northbridge bank only to the guest"
> 
> slide 7:
> - ignore/disable CMCI and CTL2 on AMD
> 
> slide 8:
> - Filter non-SRAO/SRAR banks:
>   Rename it to "Let guest see northbridge bank only to the guest"
> - Question: Should we allow the guest to inject errors? Does it make
>   sense?
> - always disable MCi_CTL2 on AMD
> 
> slide 9:
> - Model specific issue: Also affects AMD as some models have
>   l3 cache and some do not.
>   E.g. it does not make sense to report l3 cache errors to guests

--
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/