linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 8 Apr 2022 02:48:47 -0500
From:   "Koralahalli Channabasappa, Smita" <skoralah@....com>
To:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Smita Koralahalli <Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@....com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] x86/mce: Handle AMD threshold interrupt storms

Hi,

On 4/6/22 5:44 PM, Luck, Tony wrote:

> +		/* Return early on an interrupt storm */
> +		if (this_cpu_read(bank_storm[bank]))
> +			return;
>
> Is you reasoning for early return that you already have plenty of
> logged errors from this bank, so OK to skip additional processing
> of this one?

The idea behind this was: Once, the interrupts are turned off by
track_cmci_storm() on a storm, (which is called before this "if
statement") logging and handling of subsequent corrected errors
will be taken care by machine_check_poll(). Hence, no need to
redo this again in the handler....

Let me know what are your thoughts on this?

>
> -Tony