linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86/mce: Define 'SUCCOR' cpuid bit

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:	Fri, 1 May 2015 09:54:19 -0500
From:	Aravind Gopalakrishnan <aravind.gopalakrishnan@....com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:	<tglx@...utronix.de>, <mingo@...hat.com>, <hpa@...or.com>,
	<tony.luck@...el.com>, <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
	<yinghai@...nel.org>, <x86@...nel.org>, <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	<JBeulich@...e.com>, <slaoub@...il.com>, <luto@...capital.net>,
	<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, <oleg@...hat.com>,
	<rostedt@...dmis.org>, <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	<prarit@...hat.com>, <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, <jroedel@...e.de>,
	<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, <macro@...ux-mips.org>,
	<wangnan0@...wei.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86/mce: Define 'SUCCOR' cpuid bit

On 5/1/2015 5:25 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 09:49:22AM -0500, Aravind Gopalakrishnan wrote:
>> SUCCOR stands for S/W UnCorrectable error COntainment and Recovery.
>> It indicates support for data poisoning in HW and deferred error
>> interrupts.
>>
>>
>>   
>>   struct mce_vendor_flags {
>>   	__u64		overflow_recov	: 1, /* cpuid_ebx(80000007) */
>> -			__reserved_0	: 63;
>> +			succor		: 1,
> Please add that CPUID bit definition from the commit message here too so
> that we know what it means.

Will do.

Shall I beef up comment regarding 'overflow_recov' too?
Something like 'overflow recovery cpuid bit indicates that overflow 
conditions are not fatal'
would provide a better indication of the usage of the bit IMHO.

>>   	case X86_VENDOR_AMD:
>>   		mce_amd_feature_init(c);
>>   		mce_flags.overflow_recov = cpuid_ebx(0x80000007) & 0x1;
>> +		mce_flags.succor = (cpuid_ebx(0x80000007) & 0x2) ? 1 : 0;
> 		mce_flags.succor = !!(cpuid_ebx(0x80000007) & BIT(1));
>
> is a common way of assigning truth values from bits in the kernel.
>
> You can change the above one to use BIT(0) too, while at it, and
> vertically align the assignments.
>
>


Ok, Will do.

Thanks,
-Aravind.
--
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/