linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND V2 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <fcadc80b-aefd-4a22-b910-70d9c97fa5b3@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2025 17:54:18 +0300
From: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Tony Luck
	<tony.luck@...el.com>, <pbonzini@...hat.com>, <seanjc@...gle.com>,
	<vannapurve@...gle.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar
	<mingo@...hat.com>, <x86@...nel.org>, H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
	<linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>, <kai.huang@...el.com>,
	<reinette.chatre@...el.com>, <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>,
	<tony.lindgren@...ux.intel.com>, <binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>,
	<ira.weiny@...el.com>, <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>, Fan Du <fan.du@...el.com>,
	Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>, <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>,
	<chao.gao@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND V2 1/2] x86/mce: Fix missing address mask in
 recovery for errors in TDX/SEAM non-root mode

On 22/08/2025 16:54, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 10:57:36AM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> Not exactly.  I just want to fix the bug whereby the mce handler fails
>> to mark the affected page as poisoned because it does not remove the KeyID
>> from the address before looking-up the page.
> 
> Lemme ask this differently then: are you ever going to need KeyID in mci_addr?

No

> 
>> No one expects to find non-address bits in struct mce addr,
> 
> You're preaching to the choir - I don't know whose idea it was to shove
> a key ID in an address value... it sure sounds silly.
> 
>> However, it is allowed to extend struct mce, so adding KeyID or raw MCI ADDR
>> later is quite possible.
> 
> Why would you want to do that? Do you have a use case?
> 
> If not, you can drop that whole angle about adding KeyID later

Droppin' it.