linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add new ie31200

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 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, 7 Apr 2014 22:00:28 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	tony.luck@...el.com, dougthompson@...ssion.com,
	m.chehab@...sung.com, mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp,
	linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add new ie31200_edac driver

On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 09:13:45PM +0000, Jason Baron wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Add support for memory errors for the Intel E3-1200 processors.
> 
> While testing the driver, I found that doing a readq() on the
> memory mapped memory controller hub registers caused a hard lockup
> on my x86_64 system. It turns out that a read across a DW boundary
> is a no no here.
> 
> "
> Software must not access B0/D0/F0 32-bit memory-mapped registers with
> requests that cross a DW boundary.
> "
> 
> (http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/xeon/xeon-e3-1200-family-vol-2-datasheet.html p. 16)
> 
> Thus, I've added a generic lo_hi_[read|write]_q API, to deal with
> this issue.
> 
> I think longer term the right thing is maybe to simply add these
> definitions to include/asm-generic/io.h, as I didn't see any
> in tree users of 'io-64-nonatomic-hi-lo.h', and simply remove
> io-64-nonatomic-hi-lo.h and io-64-nonatomic-lo-hi.h. But I didn't want to
> tie that cleanup to this edac driver submission.

Makes sense to me. There are a couple of drivers which include
io-64-nonatomic-lo-hi.h though.

As part of the cleanup, it might be even clearer to do the lo_hi_* calls
directly instead of the readq/writeq defines as a means of documenting
that this particular code cannot stomach doubleword-crossing accesses.

x86 guys, opinions? Especially patch 1/3, should I pick it up or you
want?

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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/