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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 10 Jul 2014 20:44:16 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <>
To:	Havard Skinnemoen <>
Cc:	Tony Luck <>,
	Linux Kernel <>,
	Ewout van Bekkum <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] x86-mce: Add spinlocks to prevent duplicated MCP and
 CMCI reports.

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:03:43AM -0700, Havard Skinnemoen wrote:
> For non-shared banks, we might risk some CPUs not being able to
> poll their banks in a long time if they happen to be more or less
> synchronized with a different CPU. This will also get worse with
> shorter polling intervals, and with larger numbers of CPUs.

No, I meant to do something like

	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&mce_banks[i].poll))
		m.status = mce_rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_MCx_STATUS(i));

	atomic_add_unless(&mce_banks[i].poll, 1, 1);

so that you have only one CPU read the status register of mce_banks[i].

For non-shared banks, this will always work because no other CPU will
dec that variable anyway.

Or am I missing something...?


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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists