[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <690bc3b9-2890-e68d-5e4b-cda5c21b496b@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 10:50:07 -0800
From: "Yu, Yu-cheng" <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Vedvyas Shanbhogue <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>,
Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@...el.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 06/25] x86/cet: Add control-protection fault handler
On 2/8/2021 10:20 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 10:00:21AM -0800, Yu, Yu-cheng wrote:
>> The ratelimit here is only for #CP, and its rate is not counted together
>> with other types of faults. If a task gets here, it will exit. The only
>> condition the ratelimit will trigger is when multiple tasks hit #CP at once,
>> which is unlikely. Are you suggesting that we do not need the ratelimit
>> here?
>
> I'm trying to first find out why is it there.
>
> Is this something you've hit during testing and thought, oh well, this
> needs a ratelimit or was it added just because?
>
I have not run into the situation. Initially it was there because other
faults have it. When you asked, I went through it and put out my
reasoning. I think it still makes sense to keep it.
--
Yu-cheng
Powered by blists - more mailing lists