Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:30:22 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, x86-ml <x86@kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] #MC mess
Message-ID: <20200218203022.GH11457@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200218173150.GK14449@zn.tnic>
 <20200218131158.693eeefc@gandalf.local.home>
 <20200218195035.GN14449@zn.tnic>
 <20200218150850.224d9b8e@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200218150850.224d9b8e@gandalf.local.home>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 03:08:50PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Now, is jump labels bad in these cases (note, it is possible to trigger
> a breakpoint in them, does an iret disable the MC as well, which means
> we could get nested MC handlers corrupting the IST stack?).

That is what I expect, and would be consistent with the whole NMI
situation.