| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CALCETrWKQgnZfNmcQcROc1rOuoks7=P6VjGvwoE3aP4jTTgC0A@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 14:52:53 -0700 From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org> Subject: Re: STI architectural question (and lretq -- I'm not even kidding) On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote: > Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> writes: > >> I think an MCE just might be okay -- it's not >> really recoverable anyway. > > That's wrong. I think that, other than broadcast MCEs, #MC that hits in kernel mode is non-recoverable, or at least can't safely be recovered. (There's a separate APIC interrupt for recoverable errors, I think, but that's a much saner interface.) Regardless, I put in a fixup in the patches I sent out -- they should be just as safe as existing code if a #MC hits right after sti. I have no idea how to test that, though... --Andy > > -Andi > > -- > ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only -- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists