[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140115183807.GA23486@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 19:38:07 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aravind.gopalakrishnan@....com,
tglx@...utronix.de, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86, cpu, amd: Add workaround for family 16h,
erratum 793
* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 01/15/2014 05:36 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >>
> >> msr_read() would essentially map to rdmsr_safe(). Each method has a
> >> return value that can be checked for failure.
> >
> > I'm not sure we want to use the _safe() variants by default as it
> > would generate the exception tables even in cases where they're
> > clearly not needed.
I don't think those new methods should be inline functions - thus
there will be only one exception entry for each.
> It would be particularly silly if what you end up with is in effect
> to wrap msr_read/write() in a BUG_ON(), which is the effect of the
> current (trapping) form. There is something to be said for hard
> errors.
Right, the fact that most of our MSR accesses today are
crash-on-failure, which happens to trigger crashes on a regular
schedule, where most of the crashes are 'harmless' situation except
that they crash the systems for good.
So I think defaulting to soft failures is the right approach.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists