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:	Thu, 10 Jul 2014 11:32:44 -0700
From:	Havard Skinnemoen <>
To:	Borislav Petkov <>
Cc:	"Luck, Tony" <>,
	"" <>,
	Ewout van Bekkum <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] x86-mce: Modify CMCI storm exit to reenable instead
 of rediscover banks.

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Borislav Petkov <> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 02:34:39PM -0700, Havard Skinnemoen wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Luck, Tony <> wrote:
> > >> The CMCI storm handler previously called cmci_reenable() when exiting a
> > >> CMCI storm. However, when entering a CMCI storm the bank ownership was
> > >> not relinquished by the affected CPUs. The CMCIs were only disabled via
> > >> cmci_storm_disable_banks(). The handler was updated to instead call a
> > >> new function, cmci_storm_enable_banks(), to reenable CMCI on the already
> > >> owned banks instead of rediscovering CMCI banks (which were still owned
> > >> but disabled).
> > >
> > > Won't this cause problems if we online a cpu during the storm. We will
> > > re-run the discovery algorithm and some other cpu that shares the bank
> > > will see MCi_CTL2{30} is zero and claim ownership.
> >
> > Yes, I think you're right. We didn't test this with CPU hotplugging.
> >
> > I'm at loss about how to fix it though. We need the CMCI bits to
> > detect shared banks, but they're not reflecting the actual state of
> > things at that point. If the CPU gives up ownership of the banks, then
> > we might just see the storm move from CPU to CPU, right?
> >
> > We could keep a separate bitmask somewhere to indicate ownership, but
> > even if we can see that the bank is shared with some other CPU, we
> > don't know if it will be shared with a new CPU which we've never seen
> > before...
> >
> > Perhaps we need to temporarily disable the storm handling when we're
> > bringing up a new CPU?
> Looking at this more, maybe cmci_storm_disable_banks() was a bad idea
> after all. There's __cmci_disable_bank() which properly drops ownership
> after having disabled CMCI.
> Maybe we should kill cmci_storm_disable_banks() and do
> __cmci_disable_bank by iterating over them all...

But that will clear mce_banks_owned as well, so the bank won't get
polled while the storm is active...

If mce_banks_owned isn't cleared, cmci_reenable won't reclaim the
banks after the storm subsides.

Perhaps cmci_storm_enable_banks just needs to relinquish the bank if
CMCI_EN is already set? I don't think this is a perfect solution
though -- if a new CPU comes up while the current owner is in storm
mode, claims the bank, and then enters storm mode itself, they might
both end up claiming the bank, at least for a while.

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