linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] x86/mce: retrieve poison range from hardware

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, 27 Jul 2022 13:01:31 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Jane Chu <jane.chu@...cle.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "tony.luck@...el.com" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
        "nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev" <nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] x86/mce: retrieve poison range from hardware

Jane Chu wrote:
> On 7/27/2022 12:30 PM, Jane Chu wrote:
> > On 7/27/2022 12:24 PM, Jane Chu wrote:
> >> On 7/27/2022 11:56 AM, Dan Williams wrote:
> >>> Jane Chu wrote:
> >>>> With Commit 7917f9cdb503 ("acpi/nfit: rely on mce->misc to determine
> >>>> poison granularity") that changed nfit_handle_mce() callback to report
> >>>> badrange according to 1ULL << MCI_MISC_ADDR_LSB(mce->misc), it's been
> >>>> discovered that the mce->misc LSB field is 0x1000 bytes, hence 
> >>>> injecting
> >>>> 2 back-to-back poisons and the driver ends up logging 8 badblocks,
> >>>> because 0x1000 bytes is 8 512-byte.
> >>>>
> >>>> Dan Williams noticed that apei_mce_report_mem_error() hardcode
> >>>> the LSB field to PAGE_SHIFT instead of consulting the input
> >>>> struct cper_sec_mem_err record.  So change to rely on hardware whenever
> >>>> support is available.
> >>>>
> >>>> Link: 
> >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/7ed50fd8-521e-cade-77b1-738b8bfb8502@oracle.com 
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jane Chu <jane.chu@...cle.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>   arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/apei.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
> >>>>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/apei.c 
> >>>> b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/apei.c
> >>>> index 717192915f28..26d63818b2de 100644
> >>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/apei.c
> >>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/apei.c
> >>>> @@ -29,15 +29,27 @@
> >>>>   void apei_mce_report_mem_error(int severity, struct 
> >>>> cper_sec_mem_err *mem_err)
> >>>>   {
> >>>>       struct mce m;
> >>>> +    int grain = PAGE_SHIFT;
> >>>>       if (!(mem_err->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_PA))
> >>>>           return;
> >>>> +    /*
> >>>> +     * Even if the ->validation_bits are set for address mask,
> >>>> +     * to be extra safe, check and reject an error radius '0',
> >>>> +     * and fallback to the default page size.
> >>>> +     */
> >>>> +    if (mem_err->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_PA_MASK) {
> >>>> +        grain = ~mem_err->physical_addr_mask + 1;
> >>>> +        if (grain == 1)
> >>>> +            grain = PAGE_SHIFT;
> >>>
> >>> Wait, if @grain is the number of bits to mask off the address, shouldn't
> >>> this be something like:
> >>>
> >>>      grain = min_not_zero(PAGE_SHIFT, 
> >>> hweight64(~mem_err->physical_addr_mask));
> >>
> >> I see. I guess what you meant is
> >>     grain = min(PAGE_SHIFT, (1 + 
> >> hweight64(~mem_err->physical_addr_mask)));
> > 
> > Sorry, take that back, it won't work either.
> 
> This will work,
>    grain = min_not_zero(PAGE_SHIFT - 1, 
> hweight64(~mem_err->physical_addr_mask));
>    grain++;
> but too sophisticated?  I guess I prefer the simple "if" expression.

An "if" is fine, I was more pointing out that:

    hweight64(~mem_err->physical_addr_mask) + 1

...and:

    ~mem_err->physical_addr_mask + 1;

...give different results.