[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F3281189E@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 22:18:33 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Andi Kleen" <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC] x86_64: A real proposal for iret-less return to kernel
>> That TIF_MCE_NOTIFY prevents the return to user mode, and we end up in mce_notify_process().
>
> Why is this necessary?
The recovery path has to do more than just send a signal - it needs to walk processes and
"mm"s to see which have mapped the physical address that the h/w told us has gone bad.
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists