linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] x86/mce: Fix all mce notifiers to update the mce->handled bitmask

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: <20200213230807.GA22454@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Feb 2020 15:08:07 -0800
From:   "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] x86/mce: Fix all mce notifiers to update the
 mce->handled bitmask

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 02:27:31PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 2:19 PM Luck, Tony <tony.luck@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 06:03:08PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 12:46:51PM -0800, Tony Luck wrote:
> > > > If the handler took any action to log or deal with the error, set
> > > > a bit int mce->handled so that the default handler on the end of
> > > > the machine check chain can see what has been done.
> > > >
> > > > [!!! What to do about NOTIFY_STOP ... any handler that returns this
> > > > value short-circuits calling subsequent entries on the chain. In
> > > > some cases this may be the right thing to do ... but it others we
> > > > really want to keep calling other functions on the chain]
> > >
> > > Yes, we can kill that NOTIFY_STOP thing in the mce code since it is
> > > nasty.
> >
> > Well, there are places where we want to keep NOTIFY_STOP.
> 
> I very very strongly disagree.
> 
> >
> > 1) Default case for CEC.  We want it to "hide" the corrected error.
> >    That was one of the main goals for CEC.  We've discussed cases
> >    where CEC shouldn't hide (when internal threshold exceeded and
> >    it tries to take a page offline ... probably something related to
> >    CMCI storms ... though we didn't really come to any conclusion)
> 
> Then put this logic in do_machine_check() or in some sensible place
> that it calls via some ops structure or directly.  Don't hide it in
> some incomprehensible, possibly nondeterministic place in a notifier
> chain.

I could make the EDAC driver (and others on the chain) check to see if
CEC already handled the error record:

		if (mce->handled & MCE_HANDLED_CEC)
			return NOTIFY_DONE;

Then everyone on the chain still sees the error ... just some of them
make informed decisions based on what functions earlier in the chain
did with the error record.

> > 2) Errata. Perhaps a vendor/platform specific function at the head
> >    of the notify chain that weeds out errors that should never have
> >    been reported.
> 
> No, do this before the notifier chain please.

Ok. We don't have code that does this yet. If we need some, I'll
make sure to do the weed out before it gets to the notifier.

-Tony