linux-kernel - Re: [FYI PATCH 0/7] Mitigation for CVE-2018-12207

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: <20191115022328.GC18745@guptapadev.amr>
Date:   Thu, 14 Nov 2019 18:23:28 -0800
From:   Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Ralf Ramsauer <ralf.ramsauer@...-regensburg.de>,
        "Gupta, Pawan Kumar" <pawan.kumar.gupta@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [FYI PATCH 0/7] Mitigation for CVE-2018-12207

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 09:13:22AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 14.11.19 00:25, Pawan Gupta wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 09:23:30AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > On 13/11/19 07:38, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > > > When reading MCE, error code 0150h, ie. SRAR, I was wondering if that
> > > > couldn't simply be handled by the host. But I suppose the symptom of
> > > > that erratum is not "just" regular recoverable MCE, rather
> > > > sometimes/always an unrecoverable CPU state, despite the error code, right?
> > > 
> > > The erratum documentation talks explicitly about hanging the system, but
> > > it's not clear if it's just a result of the OS mishandling the MCE, or
> > > something worse.  So I don't know. :(  Pawan, do you?
> > 
> > As Dave mentioned in the other email its "something worse".
> > 
> > Although this erratum results in a machine check with the same MCACOD
> > signature as an SRAR error (0x150) the MCi_STATUS.PCC bit will be set to
> > one. The Intel Software Developers manual says that PCC=1 errors are
> > fatal and cannot be recovered.
> > 
> > 	15.10.4.1 Machine-Check Exception Handler for Error Recovery [1]
> > 
> > 	[...]
> > 	The PCC flag in each IA32_MCi_STATUS register indicates whether recovery
> > 	from the error is possible for uncorrected errors (UC=1). If the PCC
> > 	flag is set for enabled uncorrected errors (UC=1 and EN=1), recovery is
> > 	not possible.
> > 
> 
> And, as Dave observed, even that event is not delivered to software (maybe
> just logged by firmware for post-reset analysis) but can or does cause a
> machine lock-up, right?

It can either cause a machine lock-up or a reset and the event delivery
to the software is not guaranteed.

Thanks,
Pawan