linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/mce: add support SRAO reported via CMC 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7180dff1-2e55-5577-85d3-eda288f2be81@huawei.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:43:07 +0800
From:   Xie XiuQi <xiexiuqi@...wei.com>
To:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
CC:     <bp@...en8.de>, <tglx@...utronix.de>, <mingo@...hat.com>,
        <hpa@...or.com>, <x86@...nel.org>, <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mce: add support SRAO reported via CMC check

Hi Tony,

On 2017/11/15 2:51, Luck, Tony wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 01:55:11PM +0800, Xie XiuQi wrote:
>> +	/* known AO MCACODs reported via CMC: */
>> +	MCESEV(
>> +		AO, "Action optional: memory scrubbing error",
>> +		SER, MASK(MCI_UC_SAR|MCACOD_SCRUBMSK, MCI_STATUS_UC|MCACOD_SCRUB)
> 
> I think you should check for OVER=0 (as the existing AO cases do).
> If there was a patrol scrub reported by CMCI, and then another UC
> error, we can't safely treat this as an AO ... because we have no
> idea what the second UC error was.

OK, I'll add check for OVER=0 in v2.

-- 
Thanks,
Xie XiuQi

> 
> -Tony
> 
> .
>