From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5426FC4332E for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 18:22:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36AC664E88 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 18:22:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235608AbhBHSWK (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Feb 2021 13:22:10 -0500 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:42148 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233251AbhBHSVA (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Feb 2021 13:21:00 -0500 Received: from zn.tnic (p200300ec2f073f0023a6d1f14b392727.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:ec:2f07:3f00:23a6:d1f1:4b39:2727]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.skyhub.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTPSA id 7CAD61EC04D1; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 19:20:12 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alien8.de; s=dkim; t=1612808412; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=qeF+mQeeKnzlVS28rZchr2a9Z1+kGh/ZuRWejrk4LHk=; b=RyHFSrVqG/V+VmsocywmZDdM4WcsK//kIh7Oaaiji5e3Gs2wJIJKSn8xv1kgJANIL1D8N1 ShAAXcxGx5SBiCN96gwGM5AFDdhXJJVn/0/Jgmv2e0kDuGVm9DLVbGfgiK4fA2MNrngX7Z aB9OHNbXk/TJCLE6MbJLJELNmqpiNHw= Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 19:20:09 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: "Yu, Yu-cheng" Cc: x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , Andy Lutomirski , Balbir Singh , Cyrill Gorcunov , Dave Hansen , Eugene Syromiatnikov , Florian Weimer , "H.J. Lu" , Jann Horn , Jonathan Corbet , Kees Cook , Mike Kravetz , Nadav Amit , Oleg Nesterov , Pavel Machek , Peter Zijlstra , Randy Dunlap , "Ravi V. Shankar" , Vedvyas Shanbhogue , Dave Martin , Weijiang Yang , Pengfei Xu , Michael Kerrisk Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 06/25] x86/cet: Add control-protection fault handler Message-ID: <20210208182009.GE18227@zn.tnic> References: <20210203225547.32221-1-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> <20210203225547.32221-7-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> <20210205135927.GH17488@zn.tnic> <2d829cba-784e-635a-e0c5-a7b334fa9b40@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2d829cba-784e-635a-e0c5-a7b334fa9b40@intel.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-api@vger.kernel.org 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? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette