[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151227133330.GA20823@nazgul.tnic>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 14:33:30 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com>,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"elliott@....com" <elliott@....com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHV5 3/3] x86, ras: Add __mcsafe_copy() function to recover
from machine checks
On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 05:25:45AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> That could significantly bloat the kernel image.
Yeah, we probably should build an allyesconfig and see how big
__ex_table is and compute how much actually that bloat would be,
because...
> Anyway, the bit 31 game isn't so bad IMO because it's localized to the
> extable macros and the extable reader, whereas the bit 63 thing is all
> tangled up with the __mcsafe_copy thing, and that's just the first
> user of a more general mechanism.
>
> Did you see this:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/luto/linux.git/commit/?h=strict_uaccess_fixups/patch_v1&id=16644d9460fc6531456cf510d5efc57f89e5cd34
... the problem this has is that you have 4 classes, AFAICT. And since
we're talking about a generic mechanism, the moment the 4 classes are
not enough, this new scheme fails.
I'm just saying...
4 classes are probably more than enough but we don't know.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
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