linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86, mce: Fix machine_check_poll() tests for which errors to log

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: <20190311204217.GA1810@agluck-desk>
Date:   Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:42:17 -0700
From:   "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:     "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, mce: Fix machine_check_poll() tests for which
 errors to log

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 08:25:53PM +0000, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> > +		if (!(m.status & MCI_STATUS_PCC) && !(m.status & MCI_STATUS_S))
> > +			goto log_it;
> > +
> 
> Can you please include a vendor check with this? MCi_STATUS[56] is
> not defined the same way on AMD systems.

Original code also looked at MCi_STATUS[56] without a vendor
check:

> > -               (m.status & (mca_cfg.ser ? MCI_STATUS_S : MCI_STATUS_UC)))

Was this OK because you don't set mca_cfg.ser?

If so, my new code will also skip out before getting to this test. But
should probably have a better comment. Something like:


		/*
		 * Newer Intel systems that support software error
		 * recovery need to make some extra checks. Other
		 * CPUs should skip over uncorrected errors, but log
		 * everything else
		 */
		if (!mca_cfg.ser) {
			if (m.status & MCI_STATUS_UC)
				continue;
			goto log_it;
		}

-Tony