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:	Fri, 23 May 2014 03:10:33 +0530
From:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <>
To:	Borislav Petkov <>
CC:	"Luck, Tony" <>,
	Andi Kleen <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <>,
	Jacob Pan <>,
	LKML <>,
	Borislav Petkov <>, Ingo Molnar <>,
	"Wysocki, Rafael J" <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	"" <>,
	Oleg Nesterov <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, MCE: Kill CPU_POST_DEAD

On 05/23/2014 03:01 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 02:43:31AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>>> After you move the cmci_rediscover() call, it is now in a place where we are
>>>> no longer ignoring frozen (i.e. the old placement did the rediscover even if the
>>>> CPU_TASKS_FROZEN bit was set - with the new placement we will skip rediscovery.
>> That's not quite true. The existing code already ignores FROZEN for all the cases,
>> by ignoring it at the top of the switch-case itself:
> No, Tony's right and you got confused:
> Before my change, the code did:
> 	if (action == CPU_POST_DEAD) {
> 		/* intentionally ignoring frozen here */
> 		cmci_rediscover();
> 	}
> which is only CPU_POST_DEAD *without* the CPU_TASKS_FROZEN bit.
> If I move it in the switch-case, cmci_rediscover() *ignores the FROZEN
> bit and gets executed for both:
> because with the FROZEN bit masked out, they're the same.
> But we don't want to execute it for the FROZEN bit - look for the other
> two tests for CPU_TASKS_FROZEN in mce.c for an example.
> So, before we go and change the FROZEN aspect and break things in
> strange ways, let's keep the _FROZEN ignore. I certainly don't want to
> go down that road and chase why we needed FROZEN or not.
> Ok?

Right, I got confused about who meant what by the term 'ignore' -
ignore the FROZEN _bit_ as in execute all the time irrespective of that
bit being set or unset, or ignore the FROZEN _case_ as in don't execute
during suspend/resume.

Anyway, sorry for the confusion! Your latest code looks correct to me.

Srivatsa S. Bhat

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists