linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 02/22] x86,mce: Delete ist_begin_non

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CALCETrWBEDjenqze3wVc6TkUt_g+OFx9TQbYysLH+6fku=aWjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Feb 2020 09:21:48 -0800
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, gustavo@...eddedor.com,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, paulmck@...nel.org,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/22] x86,mce: Delete ist_begin_non_atomic()

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 9:13 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 03:47:26PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/22] x86,mce: Delete ist_begin_non_atomic()
>
> x86/mce: ...
>
> > It is an abomination; and in prepration of removing the whole
> > ist_enter() thing, it needs to go.
> >
> > Convert #MC over to using task_work_add() instead; it will run the
> > same code slightly later, on the return to user path of the same
> > exception.
>
> That's fine because the error happened in userspace.

Unless there is a signal pending and the signal setup code is about to
hit the same failed memory.  I suppose we can just treat cases like
this as "oh well, time to kill the whole system".

But we should genuinely agree that we're okay with deferring this handling.