[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141107121239.GA19142@pd.tnic>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 13:12:39 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc: Chen Yucong <slaoub@...il.com>,
"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"aravind.gopalakrishnan@....com" <aravind.gopalakrishnan@....com>,
"linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] x86, mce, severity: extend the the mce_severity
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 09:24:01PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> Architecturally it is true that MCIP will be set when machine check is
> signaled. But, sometimes there are bugs. BIOS has a hook to get an SMI
> to see the event before the OS sees the machine check - which gives
> lots of scope for things to not happen by the book. If MCIP isn't set
> correctly, I'd like to get on and panic quickly - because all sorts
> of bad things will happen if a nested machine check happens and isn't
> caught because MCIP wasn't set in the first machine check.
I won't even ask about your actual experience with stuff not setting
MCIP :-)
Anyway, noted. So for the mce_severity rewrite we should make sure to
note from which context we're being called as the more reliable method,
instead of looking at MCGSTATUS.MCIP.
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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