linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/mce: Always save severity in machine_check

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: <20170612180753.mjoutdtp3mgpqqvp@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Jun 2017 11:07:54 -0700
From:   "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:     Yazen Ghannam <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>
Cc:     linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mce: Always save severity in machine_check_poll

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 11:54:06AM -0500, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
> -		severity = mce_severity(&m, mca_cfg.tolerant, NULL, false);
> -
> -		if (severity == MCE_DEFERRED_SEVERITY && mce_is_memory_error(&m))
> -			if (m.status & MCI_STATUS_ADDRV)
> -				m.severity = severity;
> +		m.severity = mce_severity(&m, mca_cfg.tolerant, NULL, false);

So that isn't quite the same. Before we only set m.severity for
memory errors where we had a valid address. Now you unconditionally
set it.

Maybe that's more useful. But it now needs an audit of the code
the registered notifiers to make sure they didn't assume that
severity set meant that this is a memory error.

-Tony