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: <16a34b6834f94f139444c2ff172645e9@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Jun 2021 22:25:36 +0000
From:   "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Smita Koralahalli <Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@....com>
CC:     "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        "yazen.ghannam@....com" <yazen.ghannam@....com>,
        Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] EDAC/mce_amd: Reduce unnecessary spew in dmesg if SMCA
 feature bit is not exposed

> But apparently those wrong error messages bug people on a regular basis
> and I'm tired of typing this each time so I'll take a different version
> of this patch: check X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR on entry in mce_amd_init()
> and return -ENODEV if set.
>
> So that this is done once and for all.

I expect all the Intel EDAC drivers that load based on CPU model have similar
issues. Maybe they aren't whining as loudly about not being able to find the
memory controller devices?

They should also check for X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR too.

$ git grep -l x86_match_cpu -- drivers/edac
drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c
drivers/edac/i10nm_base.c
drivers/edac/ieh_edac.c
drivers/edac/pnd2_edac.c
drivers/edac/sb_edac.c
drivers/edac/skx_base.c

Though perhaps this is an issue outside of EDAC and x86_match_cpu()
could do the HYPERVISOR check and return no match. The few callers
who want to believe the fictional CPU model number passed in by the
VMM would need to use some new variant of the call?

-Tony


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ