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:	Mon, 10 Nov 2014 17:03:49 -0600
From:	Aravind Gopalakrishnan <>
To:	Borislav Petkov <>
CC:	Chen Yucong <>, <>,
	<>, <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] x86, mce, severity: extend the the mce_severity
 mechanism to handle UCNA/DEFERRED error

On 11/10/2014 4:17 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 04:06:00PM -0600, Aravind Gopalakrishnan wrote:
>>> +	MCESEV(
>>> +		DEFERRED, "Deferred error",
>>>   		),
>> We don't need to have MCI_STATUS_POISON in the MASK() here as a deferred
>> error is indicated by a {UC=0, Deferred = 1}
>> (Older docs might be unclear on that..)
> Well, I think that's ok because the MASK() macro actually makes the
> check do:
> them three MCI_STATUS_DEFERRED has to be the only one set.
> And that makes sense - we want deferred errors where we didn't attempt
> to consume poisoned data (which is signalled by MCI_STATUS_POISON)....

Yeah, makes sense.

Reviewed-by: Aravind Gopalakrishnan <>


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