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: <SN6PR12MB263968DE0DD98EBE14450698F8100@SN6PR12MB2639.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Fri, 7 Jun 2019 16:44:24 +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: linux-edac-owner@...r.kernel.org <linux-edac-owner@...r.kernel.org> On Behalf Of Borislav Petkov
> Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 11:37 AM
> 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
> 
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 02:49:42PM +0000, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> > 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().
> 
> Nevermind, leave it as is. I'll fix it up ontop. I don't like that
> "__mcheck_cpu_init" prefixing there which is a mouthful and should
> simply be "mce_cpu_<do_stuff>" to denote that it is a function which is
> run on a CPU to setup stuff.
> 

Yeah, I agree.

I have another version of this set that I can send today. It includes the changes for this patch and also includes the fix for the locking bug message.

Should I send out the new version? Or do you want me to wait for any fixes on top of the current version?

Thanks,
Yazen