Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 14 May 2020 13:42:01 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@kernel.org>,
        paulmck <paulmck@kernel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>, rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        "Joel Fernandes, Google" <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Message-ID: <1431848694.21308.1589478121367.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
In-Reply-To: <87y2puxvqa.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <20200505131602.633487962@linutronix.de> <20200505134100.957390899@linutronix.de> <409359846.20366.1589413337072.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <87y2puxvqa.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch V4 part 1 29/36] x86/mce: Send #MC singal from task work
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Topic: x86/mce: Send #MC singal from task work
Thread-Index: ImAUO0bzJcO1A9UmbRjZPE+t84RW8A==
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

----- On May 14, 2020, at 1:38 PM, Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de wrote:

> Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> writes:
>> ----- On May 5, 2020, at 9:16 AM, Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de wrote:
>>
>>> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>>> 
>>
>> Patch title: singal -> signal.
>>
>>> Convert #MC over to using task_work_add(); it will run the same code
>>> slightly later, on the return to user path of the same exception.
>>
>> So I suspect that switching the order between tracehook_notify_resume()
>> (which ends up calling task_work_run()) and do_signal() done by an
>> earlier patch in this series intends to ensure the information about the
>> instruction pointer causing the #MC is not overwritten by do_signal()
>> (but I'm just guessing).
> 
> No, it does not. See the ordering discussion.
> 
> Aside of that signal never transported any address information. It uses
> force_sig(SIGBUS).
> 
> Even if a different signal would be sent first then the register frame
> of the #MC is still there when the fatal signal is sent later.
> 
> But even w/o changing the ordering the taskwork check in do_signal()
> runs the pending work before delivering anything.

Yep, that was the key thing I missed,

Thanks,

Mathieu


-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com