linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/mce: Fix missing address mask in recovery for errors in TDX/SEAM non-root mode

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: <96d035a19e04e2711d67716b9548a40793d549b2.camel@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 23:57:55 +0000
From: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, "pbonzini@...hat.com"
	<pbonzini@...hat.com>, "Hunter, Adrian" <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	"seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "Li, Xiaoyao"
	<xiaoyao.li@...el.com>, "Zhao, Yan Y" <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>,
	"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	"binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com" <binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>, "Chatre, Reinette"
	<reinette.chatre@...el.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>, "tony.lindgren@...ux.intel.com"
	<tony.lindgren@...ux.intel.com>, "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>, "hpa@...or.com"
	<hpa@...or.com>, "Annapurve, Vishal" <vannapurve@...gle.com>, "Edgecombe,
 Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "Gao,
 Chao" <chao.gao@...el.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/mce: Fix missing address mask in recovery for
 errors in TDX/SEAM non-root mode

On Wed, 2025-06-18 at 23:46 +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > It's sort of hinted at in the SDM Vol 3B Figure 17-7. IA32_MCi_ADDR MSR
> > with the footnote in the diagram:
> > 
> >   "Useful bits in this field depend on the address methodology in use when the
> >    the register state is saved."
> > 
> > Maybe there is something more explicit in documentation for memory encryption?
> 
> 
> Section 5.1 in 
> https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/managed/a5/16/Multi-Key-Total-Memory-Encryption-Spec.pdf
> 
> shows how the upper bits of the physical address are used for the :KeyID"
> 
> -Tony

Yeah. So I guess it's somehow implied the KeyID bits, which are "useful
bits", are also recorded in IA32_MCi_ADDR.