linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] x86/mce: Handle AMD threshold interrupt storms

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:   Wed, 23 Feb 2022 16:22:13 -0600
From:   "Koralahalli Channabasappa, Smita" <skoralah@....com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Smita Koralahalli <Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@....com>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] x86/mce: Handle AMD threshold interrupt storms

On 2/18/22 5:07 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 09:28:09AM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
>> I've been sitting on some partially done patches to re-work
>> storm handling for Intel ... which rips out all the existing
>> storm bits and replaces with something all new. I'll post the
>> 2-part series as replies to this.
> Which begs the obvious question: how much of that code can be shared
> between the two?
>
It looks to me most of the code can be shared except in few places
where AMD and Intel use different registers to set error thresholds.
And the fact that AMD's threshold interrupts just handles corrected
errors unlike CMCI.

I'm thinking of coming up with a shared code between both by keeping
the Intel's new storm handling code as base and incorporating AMD
changes on them and send for review.

Let me know if thats okay?

Thanks,
Smita