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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 17:15:42 -0800 From: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com> To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Robert <elliott@....com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/3] x86: Expand exception table to allow new handling options On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote: > Step 1: determine that the HW context is, in principle, recoverable. > > Step 2: ask the handler to try to recover. > > Step 3: if the handler doesn't recover, panic > > I'm not saying that restructuring the code like this should be a > prerequisite for merging this, but I'm wondering whether it would make > sense at some point in the future. For the local machine check case this all looks simple. For the broadcast case it's pretty incompatible with the current code structure. For a machine check triggered someplace in the kernel w/o a new style fixup handler we'd start by saying ... "sure, that's plausible to recover from". Then after we let all the other CPUs return from the machine check handler we'd take it back and say "just kidding, we're going down". It might work, but it would be a messier panic than we have now. Definitely food for thought for some future cleanups. -Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists