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:   Mon, 22 Feb 2021 18:08:19 +0800
From:   Aili Yao <yaoaili@kingsoft.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
CC:     <tony.luck@intel.com>, <mingo@redhat.com>, <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        <hpa@zytor.com>, <x86@kernel.org>, <linux-edac@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <yangfeng1@kingsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/mce: fix wrong no-return-ip logic in
 do_machine_check()
Message-ID: <20210222180819.3998fe33@alex-virtual-machine>
In-Reply-To: <20210222100356.GB29063@zn.tnic>
References: <20210222113124.35f2d552@alex-virtual-machine>
        <20210222115007.75b7de9b@alex-virtual-machine>
        <20210222092403.GA29063@zn.tnic>
        <20210222173109.7b7ac42a@alex-virtual-machine>
        <20210222100356.GB29063@zn.tnic>
Organization: kingsoft
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 11:03:56 +0100
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 05:31:09PM +0800, Aili Yao wrote:
> > you can inject a memory UE to a VM, it should always be MCG_STATUS_RIPV 0.  
> 
> So the signature you injected is not something the hardware would
> generate - you just didn't set MCG_STATUS_RIPV.
> 
> If so, why should the code handle invalid signatures which the harware
> cannot generate?
> 

So why would intel provide this MCG_STATUS_RIPV flag, it's better to remove it as it will
never be set, and all the related logic for this flag is really needed ?