linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 4/5] x86, Use NMI return notifier in MCE

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]

Message-ID: <87eifwagxp.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
Date:	Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:00:34 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/5] x86, Use NMI return notifier in MCE

Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> writes:

Hi Ying,

>  {
>  	if (regs->flags & (X86_VM_MASK|X86_EFLAGS_IF)) {
> -		mce_notify_irq();
> -		/*
> -		 * Triggering the work queue here is just an insurance
> -		 * policy in case the syscall exit notify handler
> -		 * doesn't run soon enough or ends up running on the
> -		 * wrong CPU (can happen when audit sleeps)
> -		 */
> -		mce_schedule_work();
> +		__mce_report_event(NULL);

Do we still handle the CPU switch case correctly?

The backend handler needs to run on the same CPU to process the per
CPU mce pfns.

-Andi

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/