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=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 DDC7DC433E0 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 19:23:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32BFD64E9C for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 19:23:27 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 32BFD64E9C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 61C7B6B0006; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 14:23:26 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 5CC9A6B006C; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 14:23:26 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 46E0E6B006E; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 14:23:26 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0019.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31EA66B0006 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 14:23:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin15.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDBB7824999B for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 19:23:25 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77796074370.15.lock32_1f1250427601 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin15.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA0611814BA03 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 19:23:25 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: lock32_1f1250427601 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3808 Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by imf13.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 19:23:24 +0000 (UTC) IronPort-SDR: fE2cCbCe6nO6tYFL+MGYCVialUbCJwdEKy1CQM21IkSUY1b3dMOQnp3qgyL/Gy9Rr+IW2JyibL wGTEh18hAIYg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9889"; a="200829800" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,163,1610438400"; d="scan'208";a="200829800" Received: from fmsmga008.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.58]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Feb 2021 11:23:22 -0800 IronPort-SDR: hQ7EzHLh1XjKnGXhPuD/XToDkgJwmpEbNG7R0HZcj22PJbDNwj7jCGyg5PpGndMk2uHcpLhv2w rrglSOj3nHFg== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,163,1610438400"; d="scan'208";a="377921602" Received: from yyu32-mobl1.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.251.11.33]) ([10.251.11.33]) by fmsmga008-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Feb 2021 11:23:19 -0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 06/25] x86/cet: Add control-protection fault handler To: Borislav Petkov 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 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> <20210208182009.GE18227@zn.tnic> <690bc3b9-2890-e68d-5e4b-cda5c21b496b@intel.com> <20210208185341.GF18227@zn.tnic> From: "Yu, Yu-cheng" Message-ID: <0e0c9e9d-aee1-ad1e-6c63-21b58a52163f@intel.com> Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 11:23:18 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210208185341.GF18227@zn.tnic> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 2/8/2021 10:53 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 10:50:07AM -0800, Yu, Yu-cheng wrote: >> I have not run into the situation. Initially it was there because other >> faults have it. > > Which other faults? exc_general_protection() and do_trap() both call show_signal(), which then calls printk_ratelimit(). > >> When you asked, I went through it and put out my reasoning. > > What does that mean? > I went through my patch and check if ratelimit is necessary, and then describe the finding. >> I think it still makes sense to keep it. > > Because you have a hunch or you actually have an objective reason why? > For example, if a shell script, in a loop re-starts an app when it exits, and the app is causing control-protection fault. The log messages should be rate limited.