[RFC PATCH] x86/mce: Check MCi_STATUS[MISCV] for usable addr on Intel only

[RFC PATCH] x86/mce: Check MCi_STATUS[MISCV] for usable addr on Intel only

[Borislav Petkov]

mce_usable_address() does a bunch of basic sanity checks to verify
whether the address reported with the error is usable for further
processing. However, we do check MCi_STATUS[MISCV] and that is not
needed on AMD as that bit says that there's additional information about
the logged error in the MCi_MISCj banks.

But we don't need that to know whether the address is usable - we only
need to know whether the physical address is valid - i.e., ADDRV.

 [ On Intel the MISCV bit is needed to perform additional checks to
   determine whether the reported address is a physical one, etc. ]

Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Cc: "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>
---

Right, so I think we don't need to look at MISCV on AMD to check whether
the address is usable because ADDRV already denotes that MCi_ADDR has
the physical address. Yes?

 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c | 7 ++++++-
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
index d409e21ec275..5abd4bf73d6e 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
@@ -480,17 +480,22 @@ static void mce_report_event(struct pt_regs *regs)
  */
 static int mce_usable_address(struct mce *m)
 {
-	if (!(m->status & MCI_STATUS_MISCV) || !(m->status & MCI_STATUS_ADDRV))
+	if (!(m->status & MCI_STATUS_ADDRV))
 		return 0;
 
 	/* Checks after this one are Intel-specific: */
 	if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_INTEL)
 		return 1;
 
+	if (!(m->status & MCI_STATUS_MISCV))
+		return 0;
+
 	if (MCI_MISC_ADDR_LSB(m->misc) > PAGE_SHIFT)
 		return 0;
+
 	if (MCI_MISC_ADDR_MODE(m->misc) != MCI_MISC_ADDR_PHYS)
 		return 0;
+
 	return 1;
 }
 
-- 
2.11.0


-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

[RFC] x86/mce: Check MCi_STATUS[MISCV] for usable addr on Intel only

[Boris Petkov]

mce_usable_address() does a bunch of basic sanity checks to verify
whether the address reported with the error is usable for further
processing. However, we do check MCi_STATUS[MISCV] and that is not
needed on AMD as that bit says that there's additional information about
the logged error in the MCi_MISCj banks.

But we don't need that to know whether the address is usable - we only
need to know whether the physical address is valid - i.e., ADDRV.

 [ On Intel the MISCV bit is needed to perform additional checks to
   determine whether the reported address is a physical one, etc. ]

Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Cc: "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>
---

Right, so I think we don't need to look at MISCV on AMD to check whether
the address is usable because ADDRV already denotes that MCi_ADDR has
the physical address. Yes?

 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c | 7 ++++++-
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
index d409e21ec275..5abd4bf73d6e 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
@@ -480,17 +480,22 @@ static void mce_report_event(struct pt_regs *regs)
  */
 static int mce_usable_address(struct mce *m)
 {
-	if (!(m->status & MCI_STATUS_MISCV) || !(m->status & MCI_STATUS_ADDRV))
+	if (!(m->status & MCI_STATUS_ADDRV))
 		return 0;
 
 	/* Checks after this one are Intel-specific: */
 	if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_INTEL)
 		return 1;
 
+	if (!(m->status & MCI_STATUS_MISCV))
+		return 0;
+
 	if (MCI_MISC_ADDR_LSB(m->misc) > PAGE_SHIFT)
 		return 0;
+
 	if (MCI_MISC_ADDR_MODE(m->misc) != MCI_MISC_ADDR_PHYS)
 		return 0;
+
 	return 1;
 }
 

RE: [RFC PATCH] x86/mce: Check MCi_STATUS[MISCV] for usable addr on Intel only

[Ghannam, Yazen]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-edac-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-edac-
> owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Borislav Petkov
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 2:39 PM
> To: Ghannam, Yazen <Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>
> Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>; linux-edac <linux-
> edac@vger.kernel.org>; lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
> Subject: [RFC PATCH] x86/mce: Check MCi_STATUS[MISCV] for usable addr on
> Intel only
> 
> mce_usable_address() does a bunch of basic sanity checks to verify whether
> the address reported with the error is usable for further processing.
> However, we do check MCi_STATUS[MISCV] and that is not needed on AMD as
> that bit says that there's additional information about the logged error in the
> MCi_MISCj banks.
> 
> But we don't need that to know whether the address is usable - we only need
> to know whether the physical address is valid - i.e., ADDRV.
> 
>  [ On Intel the MISCV bit is needed to perform additional checks to
>    determine whether the reported address is a physical one, etc. ]
> 
> Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
> Cc: "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>
> ---
> 
> Right, so I think we don't need to look at MISCV on AMD to check whether the
> address is usable because ADDRV already denotes that MCi_ADDR has the
> physical address. Yes?
> 

We definitely don't need to look at MiscV.

But the value in MCA_ADDR isn't necessarily a system physical address. It can be,
or it can be a normalized address in the case of UMCs, or it can a set/way for caches.
So it depends on the bank type and error type.

All this may just be for SMCA systems though. I need to double check.

Thanks,
Yazen

[RFC] x86/mce: Check MCi_STATUS[MISCV] for usable addr on Intel only

[Yazen Ghannam]
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---
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-edac" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/mce: Check MCi_STATUS[MISCV] for usable addr on Intel only

[Borislav Petkov]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 09:26:03PM +0000, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> We definitely don't need to look at MiscV.
> 
> But the value in MCA_ADDR isn't necessarily a system physical address. It can be,
> or it can be a normalized address in the case of UMCs, or it can a set/way for caches.
> So it depends on the bank type and error type.

Right, this is all future work. mce_usable_address() would need some
beefing up then.

> All this may just be for SMCA systems though. I need to double check.

Thanks!

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

[RFC] x86/mce: Check MCi_STATUS[MISCV] for usable addr on Intel only

[Borislav Petkov]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 09:26:03PM +0000, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> We definitely don't need to look at MiscV.
> 
> But the value in MCA_ADDR isn't necessarily a system physical address. It can be,
> or it can be a normalized address in the case of UMCs, or it can a set/way for caches.
> So it depends on the bank type and error type.

Right, this is all future work. mce_usable_address() would need some
beefing up then.

> All this may just be for SMCA systems though. I need to double check.

Thanks!

[tip:ras/core] x86/mce: Check MCi_STATUS[MISCV] for usable addr on Intel only

[tip-bot for Borislav Petkov]

Commit-ID:  c6a9583fb41c8bd017f643d5bc90a0fe0a92fe43
Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/c6a9583fb41c8bd017f643d5bc90a0fe0a92fe43
Author:     Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
AuthorDate: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:39:24 +0200
Committer:  Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
CommitDate: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:04:46 +0200

x86/mce: Check MCi_STATUS[MISCV] for usable addr on Intel only

mce_usable_address() does a bunch of basic sanity checks to verify
whether the address reported with the error is usable for further
processing. However, we do check MCi_STATUS[MISCV] and that is not
needed on AMD as that bit says that there's additional information about
the logged error in the MCi_MISCj banks.

But we don't need that to know whether the address is usable - we only
need to know whether the physical address is valid - i.e., ADDRV.

On Intel the MISCV bit is needed to perform additional checks to determine
whether the reported address is a physical one, etc.

Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Cc: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc: linux-edac <linux-edac@vger.kernel.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170418183924.6agjkebilwqj26or@pd.tnic
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>

---
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c | 7 ++++++-
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
index 9d41ec8..4a29f74 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
@@ -491,17 +491,22 @@ static void mce_report_event(struct pt_regs *regs)
  */
 static int mce_usable_address(struct mce *m)
 {
-	if (!(m->status & MCI_STATUS_MISCV) || !(m->status & MCI_STATUS_ADDRV))
+	if (!(m->status & MCI_STATUS_ADDRV))
 		return 0;
 
 	/* Checks after this one are Intel-specific: */
 	if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_INTEL)
 		return 1;
 
+	if (!(m->status & MCI_STATUS_MISCV))
+		return 0;
+
 	if (MCI_MISC_ADDR_LSB(m->misc) > PAGE_SHIFT)
 		return 0;
+
 	if (MCI_MISC_ADDR_MODE(m->misc) != MCI_MISC_ADDR_PHYS)
 		return 0;
+
 	return 1;
 }
 

[tip:ras/core] x86/mce: Check MCi_STATUS[MISCV] for usable addr on Intel only

[tip-bot for Borislav Petkov]

Commit-ID:  c6a9583fb41c8bd017f643d5bc90a0fe0a92fe43
Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/c6a9583fb41c8bd017f643d5bc90a0fe0a92fe43
Author:     Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
AuthorDate: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:39:24 +0200
Committer:  Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
CommitDate: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:04:46 +0200

x86/mce: Check MCi_STATUS[MISCV] for usable addr on Intel only

mce_usable_address() does a bunch of basic sanity checks to verify
whether the address reported with the error is usable for further
processing. However, we do check MCi_STATUS[MISCV] and that is not
needed on AMD as that bit says that there's additional information about
the logged error in the MCi_MISCj banks.

But we don't need that to know whether the address is usable - we only
need to know whether the physical address is valid - i.e., ADDRV.

On Intel the MISCV bit is needed to perform additional checks to determine
whether the reported address is a physical one, etc.

Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Cc: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc: linux-edac <linux-edac@vger.kernel.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170418183924.6agjkebilwqj26or@pd.tnic
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c | 7 ++++++-
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-edac" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
index 9d41ec8..4a29f74 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
@@ -491,17 +491,22 @@ static void mce_report_event(struct pt_regs *regs)
  */
 static int mce_usable_address(struct mce *m)
 {
-	if (!(m->status & MCI_STATUS_MISCV) || !(m->status & MCI_STATUS_ADDRV))
+	if (!(m->status & MCI_STATUS_ADDRV))
 		return 0;
 
 	/* Checks after this one are Intel-specific: */
 	if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_INTEL)
 		return 1;
 
+	if (!(m->status & MCI_STATUS_MISCV))
+		return 0;
+
 	if (MCI_MISC_ADDR_LSB(m->misc) > PAGE_SHIFT)
 		return 0;
+
 	if (MCI_MISC_ADDR_MODE(m->misc) != MCI_MISC_ADDR_PHYS)
 		return 0;
+
 	return 1;
 }