linux-edac.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] x86/mce: Avoid infinite loop for copy from user recovery
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 13:05:08 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210114210508.GA20224@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210114202213.GI12284@zn.tnic>

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 09:22:13PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 01:44:50PM -0800, Tony Luck wrote:
> > @@ -1431,8 +1433,11 @@ noinstr void do_machine_check(struct pt_regs *regs)
> >  				mce_panic("Failed kernel mode recovery", &m, msg);
> >  		}
> >  
> > -		if (m.kflags & MCE_IN_KERNEL_COPYIN)
> > +		if (m.kflags & MCE_IN_KERNEL_COPYIN) {
> > +			if (current->mce_busy)
> > +				mce_panic("Multiple copyin", &m, msg);
> 
> So this: we're currently busy handling the first MCE, why do we must
> panic?
> 
> Can we simply ignore all follow-up MCEs to that page?

If we s/all/some/ you are saying the same as Andy:
> So I tend to think that the machine check code should arrange to
> survive some reasonable number of duplicate machine checks.

> I.e., the page will get poisoned eventually and that poisoning is
> currently executing so all following MCEs are simply nothing new and we
> can ignore them.
> 
> It's not like we're going to corrupt more data - we already are
> "corrupting" whole 4K.
> 
> Am I making sense?
> 
> Because if we do this, we won't have to pay attention to any get_user()
> callers and whatnot - we simply ignore and the solution is simple and
> you won't have to touch any get_user() callers...

Changing get_user() is a can of worms. I don't think its a very big can.
Perhaps two or three dozen places where code needs to change to account
for the -ENXIO return ... but touching a bunch of different subsystems
it is likley to take a while to get everyone in agreement.

I'll try out this new approach, and if it works, I'll post a v3 patch.

Thanks

-Tony

  reply	other threads:[~2021-01-14 21:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-01-08 22:22 [PATCH 0/2] Fix infinite machine check loop in futex_wait_setup() Tony Luck
2021-01-08 22:22 ` [PATCH 1/2] x86/mce: Avoid infinite loop for copy from user recovery Tony Luck
2021-01-08 22:22 ` [PATCH 2/2] futex, x86/mce: Avoid double machine checks Tony Luck
2021-01-08 22:47   ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-01-08 23:08     ` Luck, Tony
2021-01-08 23:14       ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-01-08 23:20         ` Luck, Tony
2021-01-11 21:44 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] Fix infinite machine check loop in futex_wait_setup() Tony Luck
2021-01-11 21:44   ` [PATCH v2 1/3] x86/mce: Avoid infinite loop for copy from user recovery Tony Luck
2021-01-11 22:11     ` Andy Lutomirski
2021-01-11 22:20       ` Luck, Tony
2021-01-12 17:00         ` Andy Lutomirski
2021-01-12 17:16           ` Luck, Tony
2021-01-12 17:21             ` Andy Lutomirski
2021-01-12 18:23               ` Luck, Tony
2021-01-12 18:57                 ` Andy Lutomirski
2021-01-12 20:52                   ` Luck, Tony
2021-01-12 22:04                     ` Andy Lutomirski
2021-01-13  1:50                       ` Luck, Tony
2021-01-13  4:15                         ` Andy Lutomirski
2021-01-13 10:00                           ` Borislav Petkov
2021-01-13 16:06                             ` Luck, Tony
2021-01-13 16:19                               ` Borislav Petkov
2021-01-13 16:32                                 ` Luck, Tony
2021-01-13 17:35                                   ` Borislav Petkov
2021-01-14 20:22     ` Borislav Petkov
2021-01-14 21:05       ` Luck, Tony [this message]
2021-01-11 21:44   ` [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/mce: Add new return value to get_user() for machine check Tony Luck
2021-01-11 21:44   ` [PATCH v2 3/3] futex, x86/mce: Avoid double machine checks Tony Luck
2021-01-14 17:22   ` [PATCH v2 0/3] Fix infinite machine check loop in futex_wait_setup() Andy Lutomirski
2021-01-15  0:38   ` [PATCH v3] x86/mce: Avoid infinite loop for copy from user recovery Tony Luck
2021-01-15 15:27     ` Borislav Petkov
2021-01-15 19:34       ` Luck, Tony
2021-01-15 20:51         ` [PATCH v4] " Luck, Tony
2021-01-15 23:23           ` Luck, Tony
2021-01-19 10:56             ` Borislav Petkov
2021-01-19 23:57               ` Luck, Tony
2021-01-20 12:18                 ` Borislav Petkov
2021-01-20 17:17                   ` Luck, Tony
2021-01-21 21:09                   ` Luck, Tony
2021-01-25 22:55                     ` [PATCH v5] " Luck, Tony
2021-01-26 11:03                       ` Borislav Petkov
2021-01-26 22:36                         ` Luck, Tony
2021-01-28 17:57                           ` Borislav Petkov
2021-02-01 18:58                             ` Luck, Tony
2021-02-02 11:01                               ` Borislav Petkov
2021-02-02 16:04                                 ` Luck, Tony
2021-02-02 21:06                                   ` Borislav Petkov
2021-02-02 22:12                                     ` Luck, Tony
2021-01-18 15:39         ` [PATCH v3] " Borislav Petkov
2021-07-06 19:06 [PATCH 0/3] More machine check recovery fixes Tony Luck
2021-08-18  0:29 ` [PATCH v2 " Tony Luck
2021-08-18  0:29   ` [PATCH v2 1/3] x86/mce: Avoid infinite loop for copy from user recovery Tony Luck
2021-08-20 17:31     ` Borislav Petkov
2021-08-20 18:59       ` Luck, Tony
2021-08-20 19:27         ` Borislav Petkov
2021-08-20 20:23           ` Luck, Tony
2021-08-21  4:51             ` Tony Luck
2021-08-21 21:51               ` Al Viro
2021-08-22 14:36             ` Borislav Petkov
2021-08-20 20:33           ` Luck, Tony
2021-08-22 14:46             ` Borislav Petkov
2021-08-23 15:24               ` Luck, Tony
2021-09-13  9:24     ` Borislav Petkov

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=20210114210508.GA20224@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com \
    --to=tony.luck@intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=dvhart@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-edac@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).