linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC x86/mce] Make mce_timed

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, 8 Jan 2021 06:55:14 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, tony.luck@...el.com,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
        kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC x86/mce] Make mce_timed_out() identify holdout CPUs

On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 01:31:56PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 09:08:44AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Some information is usually better than none.  And I bet that failing
> > hardware is capable of all sorts of tricks at all sorts of levels.  ;-)
> 
> Tell me about it.
> 
> > Updated patch below.  Is this what you had in mind?
> 
> Ok, so I've massaged it into the below locally while taking another
> detailed look. Made the pr_info pr_emerg and poked at the text more, as
> I do. :)
> 
> Lemme know if something else needs to be adjusted, otherwise I'll queue
> it.

Looks good to me!  I agree that your change to the pr_emerg() string is
much better than my original.  And good point on your added comment,
plus it was fun to see that my original "holdouts" wording has not
completely vanished.  ;-)

Thank you very much!!!

							Thanx, Paul

> Thx.
> 
> ---
> Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> Date:   Wed Dec 23 17:04:19 2020 -0800
> 
>     x86/mce: Make mce_timed_out() identify holdout CPUs
>     
>     The
>     
>       "Timeout: Not all CPUs entered broadcast exception handler"
>     
>     message will appear from time to time given enough systems, but this
>     message does not identify which CPUs failed to enter the broadcast
>     exception handler. This information would be valuable if available,
>     for example, in order to correlate with other hardware-oriented error
>     messages.
>     
>     Add a cpumask of CPUs which maintains which CPUs have entered this
>     handler, and print out which ones failed to enter in the event of a
>     timeout.
>     
>      [ bp: Massage. ]
>     
>     Reported-by: Jonathan Lemon <bsd@...com>
>     Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
>     Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
>     Tested-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
>     Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210106174102.GA23874@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c
> index 13d3f1cbda17..6c81d0998e0a 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c
> @@ -877,6 +877,12 @@ static atomic_t mce_executing;
>   */
>  static atomic_t mce_callin;
>  
> +/*
> + * Track which CPUs entered the MCA broadcast synchronization and which not in
> + * order to print holdouts.
> + */
> +static cpumask_t mce_missing_cpus = CPU_MASK_ALL;
> +
>  /*
>   * Check if a timeout waiting for other CPUs happened.
>   */
> @@ -894,8 +900,12 @@ static int mce_timed_out(u64 *t, const char *msg)
>  	if (!mca_cfg.monarch_timeout)
>  		goto out;
>  	if ((s64)*t < SPINUNIT) {
> -		if (mca_cfg.tolerant <= 1)
> +		if (mca_cfg.tolerant <= 1) {
> +			if (cpumask_and(&mce_missing_cpus, cpu_online_mask, &mce_missing_cpus))
> +				pr_emerg("CPUs not responding to MCE broadcast (may include false positives): %*pbl\n",
> +					 cpumask_pr_args(&mce_missing_cpus));
>  			mce_panic(msg, NULL, NULL);
> +		}
>  		cpu_missing = 1;
>  		return 1;
>  	}
> @@ -1006,6 +1016,7 @@ static int mce_start(int *no_way_out)
>  	 * is updated before mce_callin.
>  	 */
>  	order = atomic_inc_return(&mce_callin);
> +	cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &mce_missing_cpus);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Wait for everyone.
> @@ -1114,6 +1125,7 @@ static int mce_end(int order)
>  reset:
>  	atomic_set(&global_nwo, 0);
>  	atomic_set(&mce_callin, 0);
> +	cpumask_setall(&mce_missing_cpus);
>  	barrier();
>  
>  	/*
> @@ -2712,6 +2724,7 @@ static void mce_reset(void)
>  	atomic_set(&mce_executing, 0);
>  	atomic_set(&mce_callin, 0);
>  	atomic_set(&global_nwo, 0);
> +	cpumask_setall(&mce_missing_cpus);
>  }
>  
>  static int fake_panic_get(void *data, u64 *val)
> 
> -- 
> Regards/Gruss,
>     Boris.
> 
> https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette