linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/9] x86/mce: Increment MCP count only for timer calls

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: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 10:22:22 -0400
From: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: yazen.ghannam@....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 3/9] x86/mce: Increment MCP count only for timer calls

On 5/24/24 10:53 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 10:56:35AM -0500, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
>> MCP count is currently incremented for any call to machine_check_poll().
>> Therefore, the count includes calls from the timer, boot-time polling,
>> and interrupt handlers.
>>
>> Only increment the MCP count when called from the timer so as to avoid
>> double counting the interrupt handlers.
> 
> Well, but, every time the function is called, we did poll the banks.
> Sure, the count is part of /proc/interrupts but we did poll the banks in
> those other cases too. So I think showing an accurate poll number is
> actually representing the truth, no matter where it is shown...
> 

Okay, fair enough.

In this case, should we also increment the count in __mc_scan_banks()?

Thanks,
Yazen