Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933835AbaGWVxR (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:53:17 -0400 Received: from mail-lb0-f177.google.com ([209.85.217.177]:62093 "EHLO mail-lb0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933543AbaGWVxQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:53:16 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8738drrcxp.fsf@tassilo.jf.intel.com> References: <8738drrcxp.fsf@tassilo.jf.intel.com> From: Andy Lutomirski Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 14:52:53 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: STI architectural question (and lretq -- I'm not even kidding) To: Andi Kleen Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Borislav Petkov , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Linus Torvalds , X86 ML Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: > Andy Lutomirski writes: > >> I think an MCE just might be okay -- it's not >> really recoverable anyway. > > That's wrong. I think that, other than broadcast MCEs, #MC that hits in kernel mode is non-recoverable, or at least can't safely be recovered. (There's a separate APIC interrupt for recoverable errors, I think, but that's a much saner interface.) Regardless, I put in a fixup in the patches I sent out -- they should be just as safe as existing code if a #MC hits right after sti. I have no idea how to test that, though... --Andy > > -Andi > > -- > ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only -- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/