[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] x86, entry: Switch stacks on a paranoid entry from userspace
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Luck, Tony <> wrote:
>> v2's not going to make a difference unless you're using uprobes at the
>> same time.
> Not (knowingly) using uprobes. System is installed with a RHEL7 userspace ... but is essentially
> idle except for my test program.
>> In the interest of my sanity, can you add something like
>> BUG_ON(!user_mode_vm(regs)) or the mce_panic equivalent before calling
>> memory_failure?
> I don't think that can possibly trip - we can only end up with a recoverable error from
> a user mode access. But I'll see about adding it anyway
>> What happens if there's a shared bank but the actual offender has a
>> higher order than the cpu that finds the error?
> This test case injects a memory error which is logged in bank1. This bank is shared by the
> two hyperthreads that are on the same core. The mce_severity() function distinguishes
> which is the active thread and which the innocent bystander by looking at MCG_STATUS.
> In the active thread MCG_STATUS.EIPV is 1, in the bystander it is 0. The returned severity
> is MCE_AR_SEVERITY for the thread that hit the error, MCE_KEEP_SEVERITY for the bystander.
> So it doesn't matter which thread has the lower order and sees it first.
>> Is this something I can try under KVM?
> I don't know if KVM has a way to simulate a machine check event.

printk seems to work just fine in do_machine_check. Any chance you
can instrument, for each cpu, all entries to do_machine_check, all
calls to do_machine_check, all returns, and everything that tries to
do memory_failure?

Also, shouldn't there be a local_irq_enable before memory_failure and
a local_irq_disable after it? It wouldn't surprise me if you've
deadlocked somewhere. Lockdep could also have something interesting
to say.

(Although I'm a bit confused. A deadlock in memory_failure shouldn't
cause the particular failure mode you're seeing, since a new #MC
should still be deliverable. Is it possible that we really need an
IRET to unmask NMIs? This seems unlikely.)


 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-13 04:41    [W:0.104 / U:3.396 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site