linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2 3/4] x86/split_lock: Handle #AC exception for split lock

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: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F7D348C9A@ORSMSX110.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Jun 2018 16:33:54 +0000
From:   "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:     "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>
CC:     "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 3/4] x86/split_lock: Handle #AC exception for split
 lock

>> +	WARN_ONCE(1, "A split lock issue is detected. Please FIX it\n");
>
> But, warning here is also not super useful.  Shouldn't we be dumping out
> the info in 'regs' instead of the current context?  We don't care about
> the state in the #AC handler, we care about 'regs'.

Maybe:

	WARN_ONCE(1, "split lock detected at %pF\n", regs[EIP]);

-Tony