linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 22/25] x86/mcheck: Do the init in one place

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:   Thu, 10 Nov 2016 10:00:38 +0100
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "rt@...utronix.de" <rt@...utronix.de>,
        "linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/25] x86/mcheck: Do the init in one place

On 2016-11-09 18:37:23 [+0000], Luck, Tony wrote:
> > That's why the hotplug callback mce_disable_cpu() doesn't fiddle with
> > CR4 - it only clears the bits in MCi_CTL. And I think we should remain
> > that way.
> 
> N.B. See vendor_disable_error_reporting() ... on Intel we don't clear MCi_CTL.

okay. So I had a discussion with Boris and we agreed that we don't do
the init part in one place only the timer stuff will be moved.
If I understand Tony correctly then we undo something in
vendor_disable_error_reporting() (on !INTEL CPUs) that we enable in
identify_cpu().

Boris, if my understanding is correct, what now? Do move the whole
hotplug init part to an earlier stage? Or do we drop
vendor_disable_error_reporting()?

> -Tony

Sebastian