linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86/mce: Get rid of the ->quirk_no_way

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: <YUyZDAGloQB/M4ts@zn.tnic>
Date:   Thu, 23 Sep 2021 17:11:08 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
Cc:     Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86/mce: Get rid of the ->quirk_no_way_out()
 indirect call

On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 02:51:49PM +0000, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 12:53:55PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
> > 
> > Use a flag setting to call the only quirk function for that.
> >
> 
> I'd like to add another quirk function. First revision here:
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210504174712.27675-2-Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com
> 
> Do you recommend this create another quirk flag and follow this patch? Or
> should the quirks be grouped together somehow?

Does that quirk match machines with mce_flags.smca=1 per chance?

:-)

Also, your test:

+	if ((m->mcgstatus & (MCG_STATUS_EIPV|MCG_STATUS_RIPV)) != 0)
+		return;

should be

+	if ((m->mcgstatus & (MCG_STATUS_EIPV|MCG_STATUS_RIPV)) ==
			    (MCG_STATUS_EIPV|MCG_STATUS_RIPV))
+		return;

methinks.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the erratum ofc...

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette