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 C718DC433E0 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 15:39:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F1E522C9E for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 15:39:58 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1F1E522C9E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=alien8.de Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 3C8238D001A; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 10:39:58 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 377E08D0018; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 10:39:58 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 28ED68D001A; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 10:39:58 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0174.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.174]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10B188D0018 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 10:39:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin14.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF3C8180ACC20 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 15:39:57 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77719306434.14.park24_630c3962754a Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin14.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE25A1801350B for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 15:39:50 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: park24_630c3962754a X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2848 Received: from mail.skyhub.de (mail.skyhub.de [5.9.137.197]) by imf03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 15:39:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zn.tnic (p200300ec2f069f009291f9f4a50f0191.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:ec:2f06:9f00:9291:f9f4:a50f:191]) (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 445BA1EC04F0; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 16:39:48 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alien8.de; s=dkim; t=1610984388; 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=RzHd1xNl9QC5sTnjUIzkxqrURiWyyH0SsnXWur2agWQ=; b=ReASYQRviTwk2Oz0omPg5AaPzLdaKZMDCFMmuXmfjdiCEaDtlk4b3lpo2OLC823dl/5QCl PHWX4op3lR0ASByj0t1RBRP+vHTX/n+RXYFKMsJFWvC5/ogbUXoGq5BqDVag1zY8euFQna EOU9NwQ9xWa5zukG8TL/V4HLmfQoJuQ= Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 16:39:39 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: "Luck, Tony" Cc: x86@kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Peter Zijlstra , Darren Hart , Andy Lutomirski , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86/mce: Avoid infinite loop for copy from user recovery Message-ID: <20210118153939.GC30090@zn.tnic> References: <20210111214452.1826-1-tony.luck@intel.com> <20210115003817.23657-1-tony.luck@intel.com> <20210115152754.GC9138@zn.tnic> <20210115193435.GA4663@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210115193435.GA4663@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com> 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 Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 11:34:35AM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote: > In the user mode case we should only bump mce_count to "1" and > before task_work() gets called. Ok, right, it should not be possible to trigger a second MCE while queue_task_work() runs when it is a user MCE. The handler itself won't touch the page with the hw error so our assumption is that it'll get poisoned. If it doesn't, I guess the memory failure code will kill the process yadda yadda... > It shouldn't hurt to do the same checks. Maybe it will catch something > weird - like an NMI handler on return from the machine check doing a > get_user() that hits another machine check during the return from this > machine check. Eww. > AndyL has made me extra paranoid. :-) Yeah, he comes up with the nuttiest scenarios. :-) -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette