linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND 2/5] x86/MCE: Handle MCA controls in a per

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:   Wed, 10 Apr 2019 18:40:36 +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 RESEND 2/5] x86/MCE: Handle MCA controls in a per_cpu way

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 04:36:30PM +0000, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> We have this case on AMD Family 17h with Bank 4. The hardware enforces
> this bank to be Read-as-Zero/Writes-Ignored.
>
> This behavior is enforced whether the bank is in the middle or at the
> end.

Does num_banks contain the disabled bank? If so, then it will work.

> I'm thinking to redo the sysfs interface for banks in another patch
> set. I could include a new file to indicate enabled/disabled, or maybe
> just update the documentation to describe this case.

No, the write to the bank controls should fail on a disabled bank.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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