linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] PCI/AER: Consistently use

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]

Date:   Tue, 20 Nov 2018 16:35:34 -0600
From:   "Alex G." <mr.nuke.me@...il.com>
To:     Sinan Kaya <okaya@...nel.org>, Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
Cc:     Alex_Gagniuc@...lteam.com, baicar.tyler@...il.com,
        Austin.Bolen@...l.com, Shyam.Iyer@...l.com, lukas@...ner.de,
        bhelgaas@...gle.com, rjw@...ysocki.net, lenb@...nel.org,
        ruscur@...sell.cc, sbobroff@...ux.ibm.com, oohall@...il.com,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] PCI/AER: Consistently use _OSC to determine who owns
 AER



On 11/20/2018 04:28 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 11/20/2018 4:42 PM, Keith Busch wrote:
>> How does that work? If the OS takes control, it sets up MSIs that FW 
>> don't
>> react to, and disables system errors through PCIe Root Control. Aren't
>> those sys errs the mechanism FW knows it has something to do, which
>> means the OS can effectively fence it off?
> 
> I think this is all implementation detail and doesn't necessarily apply
> to all firmware-first implementation flavors.
> 
> Assumptions are:
> 1. both FW and OS are listening to MSI interrupts

On hax86, I'm not sure FW can listen to MSI interrups. FW only exists in 
SMM, not ring 1-4.

> 2. FW monitors the system errors
> 
> Some FF implementation could route the AER interrupt to a higher privilege
> level. Some other implementation could use INTx or a side-band channel 
> interrupt
> for firmware-interrupt too.
> 
> I have seen all 3 except MSI :) and also firmware never monitored the 
> system
> error bits. I was curious if anybody ever used those legacy bits. Now, I 
> know
> someone is using it.