[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151112211741.GA503@agluck-desk.sc.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:17:41 -0800
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-edac <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
DanWilliamsdan.j.williams@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86, ras: Add new infrastructure for machine check
fixup tables
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:04:36PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > We already have code to recover from machine checks encountered
> > while the processor is executing ring3 code.
>
> I meant failures during copy_from_user, copy_to_user, etc.
Yes. copy_from_user() will be pretty interesting from a coverage point
of view. We can recover by sending a SIGBUS to the process just like
we would have if the process had accessed the data directly rather than
passing the address to the kernel to acccess it.
copy_to_user() is a lot harder. The machine check is on the kernel side
of the copy. If we are copying from page cache as part of a read(2)
syscall from a regular file we can probably nuke the page from the cache
and return -EIO to the user. Other cases may be possible, but I don't
immediately see any way to do it as a general case.
-Tony
--
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