linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] x86/mce: Pay no attention to 'F' bit in MCACOD when parsing 'UC' errors.

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: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F31C9CAD4@ORSMSX106.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 24 Jul 2013 17:00:17 +0000
From:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:	"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Borislav Petkov" <bp@...e.de>,
	Chen Gong <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86/mce: Pay no attention to 'F' bit in MCACOD when
 parsing 'UC' errors.

> How about just changing MCACOD to 0xefff? I don't think we ever care
> about the 'F' bit, so we could simplify this by just changing MCACOD.

That certainly reduces the size of the patch ... I was a little worried about
just changing this because it doesn't match the definition of the MCACOD
field in the SDM (Figure 15-5 in 15.3.2.2 IA32_MCi_STATUS MSRS).

But auditing the existing uses of this define - we only currently use it in
places where we are looking for specific recoverable error signatures.
So I think a big comment in mce.h explaining the missing 'F' bit should
suffice.

I'm going to take Chen Gong's suggestion and break this into two patches,
one to fix the regression from the earlier cleanup. Another to tackle the
"F" bit issue.

New patches in a while.

-Tony
--
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/