[lkml]   [2017]   [Apr]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
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 <>
Cc: "Ghannam, Yazen" <>

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;
return 0;
return 0;
return 1;



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

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-04-18 20:40    [W:0.067 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site