[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160211220222.GJ5565@pd.tnic>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 23:02:22 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, elliott@....com,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 0/4] Machine check recovery when kernel accesses
poison
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 01:34:10PM -0800, Tony Luck wrote:
> This series is initially targeted at the folks doing filesystems
> on top of NVDIMMs. They really want to be able to return -EIO
> when there is a h/w error (just like spinning rust, and SSD does).
>
> I plan to use the same infrastructure to write a machine check aware
> "copy_from_user()" that will SIGBUS the calling application when a
> syscall touches poison in user space (just like we do when the application
> touches the poison itself).
>
> I've dropped off the "reviewed-by" tags that I collected back prior to
> adding the new field to the exception table. Please send new ones
> if you can.
>
> Changes
That's some changelog, I tell ya. Well, it took us long enough so for
all 4:
Reviewed-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists