linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 07/16] x86/mce/amd: Simplify DFR handler setup

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: <20240429125956.GNZi-ZzN1Izxps8ztT@fat_crate.local>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 14:59:56 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
Cc: robert.richter@....com, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tony.luck@...el.com, x86@...nel.org,
	Avadhut.Naik@....com, John.Allen@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/16] x86/mce/amd: Simplify DFR handler setup

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 10:12:44AM -0400, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
> I trust the value from hardware.
> 
> The intention here is to simplify the code for general maintenance and to make
> later patches easier.

There's this BIOS thing which programs those and throws a wrench in all
our trusting in the hw.

> All Zen/SMCA systems. I don't recall any issues in this area.
> 
> Some later Family 15h systems (Carrizo?) had it. But I don't know if it was
> used in production. It was slightly before my time.

Yeah, already solved in the previous mail.

> Right, I found this:
> 27afdf2008da ("apic, x86: Use BIOS settings for IBS and MCE threshold
> interrupt LVT offsets")
> 
> Which is basically the same idea: use what is in the register.
> 
> But it looks there was an issue with IBS on Family 10h.

Yap, and it was pretty blatant AFAIR.

> Is this the only case of a real issue?

I don't remember anything else but I'm not excluding there not being
others.

> If so, then why apply this method to the THR and DFR interrupts?

Meaning what exactly? You want to trust the hw for THR and DFR and let
the others use this offset reservation we're doing?

> Right, and all CPUs should use the same APIC LVT offset. If they differ, then
> setup_APIC_eilvt() will fail above and return.
> 
> Why check "if X != Y, then X = Y"? Why not just unconditionally do "X = Y"?

Why unconditionally do the assignment if it is already assigned?

I don't think x86 does store tearing so that we get deferred interrupt
on some core while some other core writes the same function pointer in
there but why even risk it if it can be avoided with a simple test?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette