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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1611101121310.3501@nanos>
Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2016 11:22:22 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
cc:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/25] x86/mcheck: Do the init in one place

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:

> 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().

Why on earth do we enable MCE stuff in identify_cpu() ?

Thanks,

	tglx