linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/MCE, EDAC/mce_amd: Save all aux registers on SMCA systems

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: <20180418171347.GH4795@pd.tnic>
Date:   Wed, 18 Apr 2018 19:13:47 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>
Cc:     "linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "tony.luck@...el.com" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/MCE, EDAC/mce_amd: Save all aux registers on SMCA
 systems

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 06:30:34PM +0000, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> We could but it's an issue of documentation and testing the older systems.
> 
> My first pass at this was to unconditionally read the registers because my
> understanding was that registers that aren't accessible would be read-as-zero.
> I thought this was a common MCA implementation. But Tony pointed out that
> this isn't the case on Intel systems. This is the case on recent AMD systems. But
> I don't know if it's the case on older systems which may or may not have
> followed the Intel implementation more closely.

So if our worry is the #GPs, we can always use the rdmsr*_safe()
variants and look at the return value. And dump a invalid value like
0xdeadbeef or so, if the read failed.

But if any bit of info we've gotten this way, helps us debug an MCE,
we're already golden!

> For example,
> 
> Deferred error occurs:
> - MCA_{STATUS,ADDR,DESTAT,DEADDR} all have valid data.
> 
> MCE occurs
> - MCA_{STATUS,ADDR} are overwritten with non-zero data.
> - MCE handler clears MCA_STATUS. MCA_ADDR is non-zero.
> 
> DFR handler finds MCA_STATUS[Deferred] is clear, so it saves
> MCA_DESTAT and MCA_DEADDR which is 0.
> 
> If !m->addr (which has MCA_DEADDR), then we read MCA_STATUS
> which has the address from the MCE.

The code could use a shorter version of this as a comment to state why
we're doing it. Because it is not obvious.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.