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 16:58:12 +0000
From:   "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 11:41 AM
> To: Ghannam, Yazen <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>
> Cc: linux-edac@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; tony.luck@...el.com; 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.
> 

Yes, unused banks in the middle are counted in the MCG_CAP[Count] value.

> > 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.
> 

Okay, so you're saying the sysfs access should fail if a bank is disabled. Is that correct?

Does "disabled" mean one or both of these?
Unused = RAZ/WI in hardware
Uninitialized = Not initialized by kernel due to quirks, etc.

For an unused bank, it doesn't hurt to write MCA_CTL, but really there's no reason to do so and go through mce_restart().

For an uninitialized bank, should we prevent users from overriding the kernel's settings?

Thanks,
Yazen