[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrV+8_p5bkeK7zQZ8r8Cq182eYdUNmh72y_vH_4SND-irw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 15:52:16 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, 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
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 03:39:11PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> But if we get a new MCE in here, it will be an MCE from kernel context
>> and it's fatal. So, yes, we'll clobber the stack, but we'll never
>> return (unless tolerant is set to something insane), so who cares?
>
> Ok, but we still have to do the work before returning to the process. So
> if not mce_notify_process() how else are you suggesting we do this?
I'm suggesting that you re-enable interrupts and do the work in
do_machine_check. I think it'll just work. It might pay to set a
flag so that you panic very loudly if do_machine_check recurses.
I suspect that, if the hardware is generating machine checks while
doing memory poisoning, the hardware is broken enough that even
panicking might not work, though :)
--Andy
--
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