[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201117122455.GG3121406@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 13:24:55 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>,
Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] x86/bus_lock: Handle warn and fatal in #DB for
bus lock
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 07:20:46PM +0000, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> #DB for bus lock is enabled by bus lock detection bit 2 in DEBUGCTL MSR
> while #AC for split lock is enabled by split lock detection bit 29 in
> TEST_CTRL MSR.
>
> Delivery of #DB for bus lock in userspace clears DR6[11]. To avoid
> confusion in identifying #DB, #DB handler sets the bit to 1 before
> returning to the interrupted task.
>
> Use the existing kernel command line option "split_lock_detect=" to handle
> #DB for bus lock:
>
> split_lock_detect=
> #AC for split lock #DB for bus lock
>
> off Do nothing Do nothing
>
> warn Kernel OOPs Warn once per task and
> Warn once per task and and continues to run.
> disable future checking When both features are
> supported, warn in #DB
>
> fatal Kernel OOPs Send SIGBUS to user
> Send SIGBUS to user
> When both features are
> supported, fatal in #AC.
>
> Default option is "warn".
>
> Hardware only generates #DB for bus lock detect when CPL>0 to avoid
> nested #DB from multiple bus locks while the first #DB is being handled.
> So no need to handle #DB for bus lock detected in the kernel.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
> Reviewed-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Sane enough I suppose,
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
The one thing I found still missing is a better description of the
things tickling SLD vs BLD. IIRC BLD detects a wider range of issues.
Therefore it _might_ make sense to allow SLD && BLD when fatal, instead
of only SLD.
Still, that's nitpicking.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists