linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] x86/mce: Change default mce logger to check mce->handled

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]

Date:   Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:05:38 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] x86/mce: Change default mce logger to check
 mce->handled

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 02:27:50PM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> That's pretty hard with a chain.  I think folks will have a conniptions

LOL. And they do already for other things so let's spare them :-)

> if we invent an error return from a notifier chain function that means
> "Go back and start over". Though if we did it would make the "handled"
> field useful for functions that didn't want to redo ... they'd just
> check if "their" bit in handled was already set.
> 
> Still, seems like a terrible idea.

Yap.

> If some driver really wants multiple bites at an error on the
> chain it could register more than one handler with different
> priorities.  In which case we should have "enum" names for the
> highest and lowest priorities so such a driver can go "first"
> or "last" (though such a thing would be dependent on whether
> some other driver was attempting to add a "first" or "last"
> entry on the chain).

Yap, makes sense. I'm fine with us even having a possible way to do
this, *if* someone decides she wants it.

Ok, thanks!

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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