linux-kernel - Re: [Patch-next] Remove notify_die in do_machine

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]

Date:	Thu, 27 May 2010 08:54:45 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
CC:	Jin Dongming <jin.dongming@...css.fujitsu.com>,
	LKLM <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch-next] Remove notify_die in do_machine_check functioin


> I have heard about that on some machine, some hardware error output pin
> of chipset may be linked with some input pin of CPU which can cause MCE.

Yes that happens.

> That is, MCE is used to report some chipset errors too. I think that is
> why notify_die is called in do_machine_check. Simply removing notify_die
> is not good for these machines.

In general deciding what to do on a MCE is rather complicated
and probably too much for any die handler.

> Maybe we should fix the notifier user instead. Which notifier user
> consumes the DIE_NMI notification?

Yes. It would be good to find out which user it is. Perhaps gdb?

One approach would be to give it a different type (DIE_MCE)

But today we don't really need it. notify_die() is primarily for debuggers
of all kinds, and I never liked the idea to call a debugger on a machine
check.

So I would be ok with just removing the call.

-Andi

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/