Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Jan 2019 11:24:27 +0100 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: Question about qspinlock nest |
| |
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 11:02:29AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Well, x86 too has multiple non-maskable vectors, and afaik only the > actual NMI vector is covered in tricky. But our MCE vector is > non-maskable too (and I have vague memories of there being more). > > Boris, Rostedt, WTH happens if our MCE code goes and hits a #BP ? (not > unlikely with this proliferation of self-modifying code) > > Anyway, the idea is that they can indeed not interrupt themselves, but I > would not be surprised if the whole MCE thing is riddled with fail (on > x86).
As we talked on IRC: we'll apply a mixture of "So don't do that then!" hints i.e., kprobing MCE code etc, and fix the issues like the schedule_work() invocation.
In general, I'd like to make/keep the #MC handler as simple and as idiot-proof as possible.
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
| |