linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] x86/mce: Dynamically register default MCE handler

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: <20200103220328.GF5099@zn.tnic>
Date:   Fri, 3 Jan 2020 23:03:28 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Jan H. Schönherr <jschoenh@...zon.de>
Cc:     Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] x86/mce: Dynamically register default MCE handler

On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 04:07:22PM +0100, Jan H. Schönherr wrote:
> On the other hand, I'm starting to question the whole logic to "only print
> the MCE if nothing else in the kernel has a handler registered". Is that
> really how it should be?

Yes, it should be this way: if there are no consumers, all error
information should go to dmesg so that it gets printed at least.

> For example, there are handlers that filter for a specific subset of
> MCEs. If one of those is registered, we're losing all information for
> MCEs that don't match.

Probably but I don't think there's an example of an actual system where
there are no other MCE consumers registered. Not if its users care about
RAS. This default fallback was added for the hypothetical case anyway.

> A possible solution to the latter would be to have a "handled" or "printed"
> flag within "struct mce" and print the MCE based on that in the default
> handler. What do you think?

Before we go and fix whatever, we need to define what exactly we're
fixing. Is there an actual system you're seeing this on or is this
something that would never happen in reality? Because if the latter, I
don't really care TBH. As in, there's more important stuff to take care
of first.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette