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, 23 Sep 2021 17:11:08 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com>
Cc:     Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86/mce: Get rid of the ->quirk_no_way_out()
 indirect call
Message-ID: <YUyZDAGloQB/M4ts@zn.tnic>
References: <20210917105355.2368-1-bp@alien8.de>
 <20210917105355.2368-5-bp@alien8.de>
 <YUyUhfTfY/3KtDTZ@yaz-ubuntu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YUyUhfTfY/3KtDTZ@yaz-ubuntu>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 02:51:49PM +0000, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 12:53:55PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > From: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
> > 
> > Use a flag setting to call the only quirk function for that.
> >
> 
> I'd like to add another quirk function. First revision here:
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210504174712.27675-2-Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com
> 
> Do you recommend this create another quirk flag and follow this patch? Or
> should the quirks be grouped together somehow?

Does that quirk match machines with mce_flags.smca=1 per chance?

:-)

Also, your test:

+	if ((m->mcgstatus & (MCG_STATUS_EIPV|MCG_STATUS_RIPV)) != 0)
+		return;

should be

+	if ((m->mcgstatus & (MCG_STATUS_EIPV|MCG_STATUS_RIPV)) ==
			    (MCG_STATUS_EIPV|MCG_STATUS_RIPV))
+		return;

methinks.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the erratum ofc...

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette