linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86/mce: Don't participate in rendezvous process once nmi_shootdown

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: <58AAEF34.9000303@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Feb 2017 21:29:24 +0800
From:   Xunlei Pang <xpang@...hat.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Xunlei Pang <xlpang@...hat.com>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
        Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
        Junichi Nomura <j-nomura@...jp.nec.com>,
        Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@...jp.nec.com>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/mce: Don't participate in rendezvous process once
 nmi_shootdown_cpus() was made

On 02/20/2017 at 07:09 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 02:10:37PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>> @@ -1128,8 +1129,9 @@ void do_machine_check(struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code)
>>  	 */
>>  	int lmce = 1;
>>  
>> -	/* If this CPU is offline, just bail out. */
>> -	if (cpu_is_offline(smp_processor_id())) {
>> +	/* If nmi shootdown happened or this CPU is offline, just bail out. */
>> +	if (cpus_shotdown() ||
> I don't like "cpus_shotdown" - it doesn't hint at all that this is
> special-handling crash/kdump.
>
> And more importantly, I want it to be obvious that we do let the
> crashing CPU into the MCE handler.

Ok, I will export crashing_cpu and use it directly in mce handler.

>
> Why?
>
> If we didn't, you will not handle *any* MCE, even a fatal one, during
> dumping memory so if that dump is corrupted from the MCE, you won't
> know. And I don't want to be the one staring at the corrupted dump and
> wondering why I'm seeing what I'm seeing.
>
> IOW, if we get a fatal MCE during dumping then we should go and die.
> This is much better than silently corrupting the dump and not even
> saying anything about it.
>

My thought is that it doesn't matter after kdump boots as new mce handler
will be installed. If we get a fatal MCE during kdumping, the new handler will
handle the cpus running kdump kernel correctly.

There is a small window between crash and kdump kernel boot, so if a SRAO comes
within this window it will also cause the mce synchronization problem on the crashing
cpu if we don't bail out the crashing cpu.

Regards,
Xunlei