[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <SJ1PR11MB6083343FF74CAB54FC2B916AFC4EA@SJ1PR11MB6083.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2023 15:12:30 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"Song, Youquan" <youquan.song@...el.com>
CC: "naoya.horiguchi@....com" <naoya.horiguchi@....com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"chu, jane" <jane.chu@...cle.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] x86/mce: set MCE_IN_KERNEL_COPYIN for all MC-Safe Copy
> As mentioned above, I am focus on copy_mc_XXX calling, it will
> abort if the exception fires when accessing the source, and we
> want to isolate the corrupted src page, maybe we could a new flag
> to indicate this scenario, the *Final Goals* is to let core
> do_machine_check to deal with the corrupted src page.
A new flag seems like a good direction. Re-using the existing
MCE_IN_KERNEL_COPYIN one happens to work now, but
is causing confusing now (since this case isn't a copy-from-user)
and may cause code maintenance issues in the future.
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists