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
| ||
|
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