[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151227100919.GA19398@nazgul.tnic>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 11:09:19 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: 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 Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 10:57:26PM -0800, Tony Luck wrote:
> ... will get the right value. Maybe this would still work out
> if the fixup is a 31-bit value plus a flag, but the external
> tool thinks it is a 32-bit value? I'd have to ponder that.
I still fail to see why do we need to make it so complicated and can't
do something like:
fixup_exception:
...
#ifdef CONFIG_MCE_KERNEL_RECOVERY
if (regs->ip >= (unsigned long)__mcsafe_copy &&
regs->ip <= (unsigned long)__mcsafe_copy_end)
run_special_handler();
#endif
and that special handler does all the stuff we want. And we pass
X86_TRAP* etc through fixup_exception along with whatever else we
need from the trap handler...
Hmmm?
--
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