From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> To: Tony Luck <tony.luck@gmail.com> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>, Robert <elliott@hpe.com>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>, linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/3] x86: Expand exception table to allow new handling options Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:00:18 -0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CALCETrV29dB_5PrT044NYg_p2CDaOgQ9p92mSc2rzKdRrAsviw@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CA+8MBbLm27dmtE-njyYUdLX8LVv91O7g34NG9oLy8n04RaqkCg@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Tony Luck <tony.luck@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote: >> Also, I think it would be nicer if the machine check code would invoke >> the handler regardless of which handler (or class) is selected. Then >> the handlers that don't want to handle #MC can just reject them. > > The machine check code is currently a two pass process. > > First we scan all the machine check banks (on all processors > at the moment because machine checks are broadcast). We > assess the severity of all errors found. > > Then we take action. Panic if the most severe error was fatal, > recover if not. > > This patch series tweaks the severity calculation. In-kernel > errors at IPs with a EXTABLE_CLASS_FAULT handler are > now ranked as recoverable. All other kernel errors remain > fatal. > > I don't think it is right to unconditionally execute the fix code in the > severity assessment phase. I would argue that unconditionally calling the handler would be cleaner. The handler would return 0 or false to indicate that it refuses to fix the exception. This is similar to the logic that, for regular user memory access, we shouldn't fix up faults other than #PF. Given that we're adding flexible handler callbacks, lets push all the "is this an acceptable fault to fix up" down into the callback. Does that make sense? > > Perhaps later we can revisit the two pass process? Oh, I see. Is it the case that the MC code can't cleanly handle the case where the error was nominally recoverable but the kernel doesn't know how to recover from it due to the lack of a handler that's okay with it, because the handler's refusal to handle the fault wouldn't be known until too late? --Andy
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> To: Tony Luck <tony.luck@gmail.com> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>, Robert <elliott@hpe.com>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>, linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/3] x86: Expand exception table to allow new handling options Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:00:18 -0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CALCETrV29dB_5PrT044NYg_p2CDaOgQ9p92mSc2rzKdRrAsviw@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CA+8MBbLm27dmtE-njyYUdLX8LVv91O7g34NG9oLy8n04RaqkCg@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Tony Luck <tony.luck@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote: >> Also, I think it would be nicer if the machine check code would invoke >> the handler regardless of which handler (or class) is selected. Then >> the handlers that don't want to handle #MC can just reject them. > > The machine check code is currently a two pass process. > > First we scan all the machine check banks (on all processors > at the moment because machine checks are broadcast). We > assess the severity of all errors found. > > Then we take action. Panic if the most severe error was fatal, > recover if not. > > This patch series tweaks the severity calculation. In-kernel > errors at IPs with a EXTABLE_CLASS_FAULT handler are > now ranked as recoverable. All other kernel errors remain > fatal. > > I don't think it is right to unconditionally execute the fix code in the > severity assessment phase. I would argue that unconditionally calling the handler would be cleaner. The handler would return 0 or false to indicate that it refuses to fix the exception. This is similar to the logic that, for regular user memory access, we shouldn't fix up faults other than #PF. Given that we're adding flexible handler callbacks, lets push all the "is this an acceptable fault to fix up" down into the callback. Does that make sense? > > Perhaps later we can revisit the two pass process? Oh, I see. Is it the case that the MC code can't cleanly handle the case where the error was nominally recoverable but the kernel doesn't know how to recover from it due to the lack of a handler that's okay with it, because the handler's refusal to handle the fault wouldn't be known until too late? --Andy -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-09 18:00 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 72+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2016-01-09 0:04 [PATCH v8 0/3] Machine check recovery when kernel accesses poison Tony Luck 2016-01-09 0:04 ` Tony Luck 2015-12-31 19:40 ` [PATCH v8 2/3] x86, mce: Check for faults tagged in EXTABLE_CLASS_FAULT exception table entries Tony Luck 2015-12-31 19:40 ` Tony Luck 2016-01-08 20:49 ` [PATCH v8 1/3] x86: Expand exception table to allow new handling options Tony Luck 2016-01-08 20:49 ` Tony Luck 2016-01-09 1:52 ` Andy Lutomirski 2016-01-09 1:52 ` Andy Lutomirski 2016-01-09 3:39 ` Brian Gerst 2016-01-09 3:39 ` Brian Gerst 2016-01-09 4:31 ` Brian Gerst 2016-01-09 4:31 ` Brian Gerst 2016-01-09 6:36 ` Andy Lutomirski 2016-01-09 6:36 ` Andy Lutomirski 2016-01-11 23:09 ` Brian Gerst 2016-01-11 23:09 ` Brian Gerst 2016-01-11 23:22 ` Andy Lutomirski 2016-01-11 23:22 ` Andy Lutomirski 2016-01-11 23:48 ` Luck, Tony 2016-01-11 23:48 ` Luck, Tony 2016-01-09 17:45 ` Tony Luck 2016-01-09 17:45 ` Tony Luck 2016-01-09 18:00 ` Andy Lutomirski [this message] 2016-01-09 18:00 ` Andy Lutomirski 2016-01-09 19:51 ` Tony Luck 2016-01-09 19:51 ` Tony Luck 2016-01-09 22:32 ` Andy Lutomirski 2016-01-09 22:32 ` Andy Lutomirski 2016-01-10 1:15 ` Tony Luck 2016-01-10 1:15 ` Tony Luck 2016-01-11 0:25 ` Luck, Tony 2016-01-11 0:25 ` Luck, Tony 2016-01-08 21:18 ` [PATCH v8 3/3] x86, mce: Add __mcsafe_copy() Tony Luck 2016-01-08 21:18 ` Tony Luck 2016-01-09 1:49 ` Andy Lutomirski 2016-01-09 1:49 ` Andy Lutomirski 2016-01-09 17:48 ` Tony Luck 2016-01-09 17:48 ` Tony Luck 2016-01-09 17:57 ` Andy Lutomirski 2016-01-09 17:57 ` Andy Lutomirski 2016-01-09 19:39 ` Tony Luck 2016-01-09 19:39 ` Tony Luck 2016-01-09 22:15 ` Dan Williams 2016-01-09 22:15 ` Dan Williams 2016-01-09 22:33 ` Andy Lutomirski 2016-01-09 22:33 ` Andy Lutomirski 2016-01-10 0:23 ` Dan Williams 2016-01-10 0:23 ` Dan Williams 2016-01-10 1:40 ` Tony Luck 2016-01-10 1:40 ` Tony Luck 2016-01-10 11:26 ` Borislav Petkov 2016-01-10 11:26 ` Borislav Petkov 2016-01-11 10:44 ` Ingo Molnar 2016-01-11 10:44 ` Ingo Molnar 2016-01-13 23:22 ` Tony Luck 2016-01-13 23:22 ` Tony Luck 2016-01-14 4:39 ` Borislav Petkov 2016-01-14 4:39 ` Borislav Petkov 2016-01-30 0:35 ` Tony Luck 2016-01-30 0:35 ` Tony Luck 2016-01-30 10:28 ` Borislav Petkov 2016-01-30 10:28 ` Borislav Petkov 2016-02-01 23:10 ` Tony Luck 2016-02-01 23:10 ` Tony Luck 2016-02-01 23:16 ` Dan Williams 2016-02-01 23:16 ` Dan Williams 2016-01-12 0:26 ` Luck, Tony 2016-01-12 0:26 ` Luck, Tony 2016-01-12 0:30 ` Andy Lutomirski 2016-01-12 0:30 ` Andy Lutomirski 2016-01-12 0:37 ` Andy Lutomirski 2016-01-12 0:37 ` Andy Lutomirski
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=CALCETrV29dB_5PrT044NYg_p2CDaOgQ9p92mSc2rzKdRrAsviw@mail.gmail.com \ --to=luto@amacapital.net \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=bp@alien8.de \ --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \ --cc=elliott@hpe.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org \ --cc=luto@kernel.org \ --cc=mingo@kernel.org \ --cc=tony.luck@gmail.com \ --cc=x86@kernel.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.