[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YU4vYSKnfdxzJFgZ@yaz-ubuntu>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 20:04:49 +0000
From: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86/mce: Get rid of the ->quirk_no_way_out()
indirect call
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 05:11:08PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 02:51:49PM +0000, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
...
> > Do you recommend this create another quirk flag and follow this patch? Or
> > should the quirks be grouped together somehow?
>
> Does that quirk match machines with mce_flags.smca=1 per chance?
>
> :-)
>
Yes, at the moment it does. So I'll use that. Thanks!
> Also, your test:
>
> + if ((m->mcgstatus & (MCG_STATUS_EIPV|MCG_STATUS_RIPV)) != 0)
> + return;
>
> should be
>
> + if ((m->mcgstatus & (MCG_STATUS_EIPV|MCG_STATUS_RIPV)) ==
> (MCG_STATUS_EIPV|MCG_STATUS_RIPV))
> + return;
>
> methinks.
>
> Unless I'm misunderstanding the erratum ofc...
>
> --
The check is intended to catch the case where both bits are 0. But I'll
double-check with the hardware folks.
Thanks,
Yazen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists