linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/mce: drop cpu_missing since we have more capable mce_missing

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: <4a77f582.4434.17cff975224.Coremail.zhangzl2013@126.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 Nov 2021 20:47:59 +0800 (CST)
From:   "Zhaolong Zhang" <zhangzl2013@....com>
To:     "Borislav Petkov" <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     "Tony Luck" <tony.luck@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mce: drop cpu_missing since we have more capable
 mce_missing_cpus

At 2021-11-08 18:31:38, "Borislav Petkov" <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 06:13:04PM +0800, Zhaolong Zhang wrote:
>> I was concerning that if I simply remove the cpu_missing code, we will lose the log in the
>> situation where mca_cfg.tolerant > 1 and no_way_out is set afterwards.
>> 
>> Do you think we can safely ignore that situation?
>
>Well, how likely is to have such a situation in practice?

It is difficult to answer...
But since current code is dealing with this situation, I think I should cover it too,
although it is only a piece of log.

Regards,
Zhaolong