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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4FF310C9.9040108@amd.com>
Date:	Tue, 3 Jul 2012 17:33:29 +0200
From:	Christoph Egger <Christoph.Egger@....com>
To:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
CC:	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	IanCampbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
	Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
	Donald D Dugger <donald.d.dugger@...el.com>,
	Haitao Shan <haitao.shan@...el.com>,
	Jinsong Liu <jinsong.liu@...el.com>,
	Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
	Susie Li <susie.li@...el.com>, Will Auld <will.auld@...el.com>,
	Xiantao Zhang <xiantao.zhang@...el.com>,
	Yunhong Jiang <yunhong.jiang@...el.com>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	KeirFraser <keir@....org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [xen vMCE RFC V0.2] xen vMCE design

On 07/03/12 17:08, Jan Beulich wrote:

>>>> On 03.07.12 at 16:50, Christoph Egger <Christoph.Egger@....com> wrote:
>> On 07/03/12 15:26, Luck, Tony wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm not convinced of the need, and would prefer aiming at a
>>>> shared implementation unless issues arise that make this
>>>> impossible.
>>>
>>> It does sound odd. Yes, Intel and AMD have differences around CMCI ... but 
>> we are never
>>> going to send a CMCI to a guest (there is no point, it can't do anything 
>> useful with the
>>> information, it may do something pointlessly stupid like stop using a guest 
>> physical page).
>>> The only reason I suggested making MCG_CAP pretend that CMCI was supported 
>> was a
>>> small optimization ... if a Linux guest sees that CMCI is supported, it will 
>> not poll the machine
>>> check banks looking for corrected errors.
>>
>>
>> Are you talking about PV or HVM guest?
>>
>> For HVM guests yes it makes sense to disable CMCI in MCG_CAP for both
>> AMD and Intel.
> 
> "enable" you mean?


Oh, sorry. I misread one sentence.
If CMCI for the guest is really just emulated (= 100% software)
then yes, enable for both AMD and Intel is fine.

Christoph

-- 
---to satisfy European Law for business letters:
Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
Einsteinring 24, 85689 Dornach b. Muenchen
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Alberto Bozzo, Andrew Bowd
Sitz: Dornach, Gemeinde Aschheim, Landkreis Muenchen
Registergericht Muenchen, HRB Nr. 43632

--
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/