linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] acpi/nfit: badrange report spill over to clean range

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: <82641e64-1003-d11a-df9c-73f3b61d6b8a@oracle.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Jul 2022 17:26:27 +0000
From:   Jane Chu <jane.chu@...cle.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
        "vishal.l.verma@...el.com" <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        "dave.jiang@...el.com" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        "ira.weiny@...el.com" <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        "nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev" <nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi/nfit: badrange report spill over to clean range

On 7/14/2022 6:19 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> Jane Chu wrote:
>> I meant to say there would be 8 calls to the nfit_handle_mce() callback,
>> one call for each poison with accurate address.
>>
>> Also, short ARS would find 2 poisons.
>>
>> I attached the console output, my annotation is prefixed with "<==".
> 
> [29078.634817] {4}[Hardware Error]:   physical_address: 0x00000040a0602600		<== 2nd poison @ 0x600
> [29078.642200] {4}[Hardware Error]:   physical_address_mask: 0xffffffffffffff00
> 
> Why is nfit_handle_mce() seeing a 4K address mask when the CPER record
> is seeing a 256-byte address mask?

Good question!  One would think both GHES reporting and 
nfit_handle_mce() are consuming the same mce record...
Who might know?

> 
> Sigh, is this "firmware-first" causing the kernel to get bad information
> via the native mechanisms >
> I would expect that if this test was truly worried about minimizing BIOS
> latency it would disable firmware-first error reporting. I wonder if
> that fixes the observed problem?

Could you elaborate on firmware-first error please?  What are the 
possible consequences disabling it? and how to disable it?

thanks!
-jane