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:	Mon, 10 Nov 2014 23:32:12 +0000
From:	"Luck, Tony" <>
To:	Borislav Petkov <>,
	Aravind Gopalakrishnan <>
CC:	Chen Yucong <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 1/2] x86, mce, severity: extend the the mce_severity
 mechanism to handle UCNA/DEFERRED error

But then I tested it ...

I injected a UC error to memory - then did a simple byte write to the target line.
This resulted in two banks logging errors:

[  124.638045] poll: CPU54 saw ec00000000010092 in bank 7
[  124.639006] poll: severity = 0
[  124.647333] poll: CPU54 saw b800000000200179 in bank 3
[  124.648322] poll: severity = 1

The bank 7 error reported as severity 0 because EN=0 ... so we took no action for it.

The bank 3 error got past that hurdle, then through the next BIT(8) set indicates a
cache error. Fell at the last check because ADDRV=0.

I think the severity table entry for the "EN" check should have been skipped
when calling from the CMCI handler. Then we would have seen severity=1
from the bank 7 error.  It would have passed the other tests too (BIT(7) and


Powered by blists - more mailing lists