linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] x86/platform updates for v5.10

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: <d865e9cd-38c9-2210-116b-935336a3738f@hpe.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Oct 2020 14:58:07 -0700
From:   Mike Travis <mike.travis@....com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
CC:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        x86-ml <x86@...nel.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/platform updates for v5.10



On 10/12/2020 2:42 PM, Mike Travis wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/12/2020 2:27 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 02:15:55PM -0700, Mike Travis wrote:
>>>> Of course, it also looks like that 'uvh_nmi_mmrx_mask' thing is a
>>>> write-only variable so it doesn't matter, but can we _please_ get this
>>>> code fixed ASAP?
>>>
>>> Yes, I'll look at it right now.  Thanks.
>>
>> As this variable is write-only you could simply zap it now with a patch
>> ontop to fix the build and then introduce it properly later, when you
>> really need it?
>>
> 
> It should have been an unsigned long instead of an int as Linus 
> suggested.  I'm not sure it's a write only variable as I think the mask 
> is used to check if the interrupt occurred (I'll have to look closer). 
> I'm trying now to send the fixed patch.  It only has this change:
> 
> dog 74> diff -u patches/uv5_update_nmi{.v1,}
> --- patches/uv5_update_nmi.v1   2020-10-12 16:30:06.083941459 -0500
> +++ patches/uv5_update_nmi      2020-10-12 16:30:46.663903731 -0500
> @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@
>   +static unsigned long uvh_nmi_mmrx;            /* 
> UVH_EVENT_OCCURRED0/1 */
>   +static unsigned long uvh_nmi_mmrx_clear;      /* 
> UVH_EVENT_OCCURRED0/1_ALIAS */
>   +static int uvh_nmi_mmrx_shift;                        /* 
> UVH_EVENT_OCCURRED0/1_EXTIO_INT0_SHFT */
> -+static int uvh_nmi_mmrx_mask;                 /* 
> UVH_EVENT_OCCURRED0/1_EXTIO_INT0_MASK */
> ++static unsigned long uvh_nmi_mmrx_mask;               /* 
> UVH_EVENT_OCCURRED0/1_EXTIO_INT0_MASK */
>   +static char *uvh_nmi_mmrx_type;                       /* "EXTIO_INT0" */
>   +
>   +/* Non-zero indicates newer SMM NMI handler present */
> 
> (or quoted)
> 
>> dog 74> diff -u patches/uv5_update_nmi{.v1,}
>> --- patches/uv5_update_nmi.v1   2020-10-12 16:30:06.083941459 -0500
>> +++ patches/uv5_update_nmi      2020-10-12 16:30:46.663903731 -0500
>> @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@
>>  +static unsigned long uvh_nmi_mmrx;            /* 
>> UVH_EVENT_OCCURRED0/1 */
>>  +static unsigned long uvh_nmi_mmrx_clear;      /* 
>> UVH_EVENT_OCCURRED0/1_ALIAS */
>>  +static int uvh_nmi_mmrx_shift;                        /* 
>> UVH_EVENT_OCCURRED0/1_EXTIO_INT0_SHFT */
>> -+static int uvh_nmi_mmrx_mask;                 /* 
>> UVH_EVENT_OCCURRED0/1_EXTIO_INT0_MASK */
>> ++static unsigned long uvh_nmi_mmrx_mask;               /* 
>> UVH_EVENT_OCCURRED0/1_EXTIO_INT0_MASK */
>>  +static char *uvh_nmi_mmrx_type;                       /* 
>> "EXTIO_INT0" */
>>  +
>>  +/* Non-zero indicates newer SMM NMI handler present */

I was in the process of tracing it through and perhaps it does need a 
bit more analysis to be correct.  What does it mean to send a patch to 
fix the compile error, just remove it?