linux-kernel - Re: STI architectural question (and lretq -- I'm not even kidding)

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]

Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 2014 12:49:17 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: STI architectural question (and lretq -- I'm not even kidding)

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 06:33:02PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Of course, this does nothing at all to protect us from #MC after sti
> on return from #MC to userspace, but I think we're screwed regardless
> -- we could just as easily get a second #MC before the sti. Machine
> check broadcast was the worst idea ever.

Please do not think that a raised #MC means the machine is gone. There
are MC errors which are reported with the exception mechanism and from
which we can and do recover, regardless of broadcasting or not.

-- 
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/