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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 16 May 2019 17:09:11 +0000
From:   "Ghannam, Yazen" <>
To:     Borislav Petkov <>
CC:     "Luck, Tony" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 5/6] x86/MCE: Save MCA control bits that get set in

> -----Original Message-----
> From: <> On Behalf Of Borislav Petkov
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2019 11:57 AM
> To: Ghannam, Yazen <>
> Cc: Luck, Tony <>;;;
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] x86/MCE: Save MCA control bits that get set in hardware
> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 04:14:14PM +0000, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> > I can put a vendor check on the read. Is that sufficient?
> Or we can drop this patch. Remind me again pls why do we need it?

So that the sysfs files show the control values that are set in the hardware. It seemed like this would be more helpful than showing all 0xF's.

But I'm okay with dropping this patch. Patch 6 in this set depends on this, so it'll need to be dropped also.

Should I send out another version of this set?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists