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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 3 Sep 2020 17:09:43 +0000
From:   "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:     Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Song, Youquan" <youquan.song@...el.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFD PATCH] x86/mce: Make sure to send SIGBUS even after losing
 the race to poison a page

> Let's see if that logic makes sense: if #MC offlines the page and sends
> SIGBUS but CMCI only offlines the page, isn't it only logical for the
> CMCI to *also* send the SIGBUS too, after having offlined the page?
>
> I.e., both should do the proper and full recovery action. Just sayin...

It made sense, and seemed to explain an issue I was seeing, when I wrote it.
But some stress testing of that patch showed that it introduces some problems
and instability.

Without the patch I can inject 10,000 errors and have every one of them complete
correctly (process gets a SIGBUS with the address of the error). With my patch
around 0.4% of injections fail to provide the address to the SIGBUS handler, worse
the test gets a fatal error every 600-700 injections.

So, I'm abandoning that patch.

-Tony

Powered by blists - more mailing lists