linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v3 5/6] x86/MCE: Save MCA control bits that get set in hardware

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: <SN6PR12MB263998ECCDF1E345FEB0869AF8100@SN6PR12MB2639.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Fri, 7 Jun 2019 14:49:42 +0000
From:   "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 5/6] x86/MCE: Save MCA control bits that get set in
 hardware

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2019 6:29 PM
> To: Ghannam, Yazen <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>
> Cc: Luck, Tony <tony.luck@...el.com>; linux-edac@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; x86@...nel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] x86/MCE: Save MCA control bits that get set in hardware
> 
> 
> I guess the cleanest way to handle his properly would be to have a
> function called something like __mcheck_cpu_init_banks() which gets
> called in mcheck_cpu_init() after the quirks have run and then does the
> final poking of the banks and sets b->init properly.
> 
> __mcheck_cpu_init_clear_banks() should then be renamed to
> __mcheck_cpu_clear_banks() to denote that it only clears the banks and
> would only do:
> 
>                 if (!b->init)
>                         continue;
> 
>                 wrmsrl(msr_ops.ctl(i), b->ctl);
>                 wrmsrl(msr_ops.status(i), 0);
> 

Would you mind if the function name stayed the same? The reason is that MCA_CTL is written here, which is the "init" part, and MCA_STATUS is cleared.

I can use another name for the check, e.g. __mcheck_cpu_check_banks() or __mcheck_cpu_banks_check_init().

Thanks,
Yazen