Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86, cpu, amd: Add workaround for family 16h,erratum 793

[Ingo Molnar]

* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 01/15/2014 05:36 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >>
> >> msr_read() would essentially map to rdmsr_safe(). Each method has a
> >> return value that can be checked for failure.
> > 
> > I'm not sure we want to use the _safe() variants by default as it 
> > would generate the exception tables even in cases where they're 
> > clearly not needed.

I don't think those new methods should be inline functions - thus 
there will be only one exception entry for each.

> It would be particularly silly if what you end up with is in effect 
> to wrap msr_read/write() in a BUG_ON(), which is the effect of the 
> current (trapping) form.  There is something to be said for hard 
> errors.

Right, the fact that most of our MSR accesses today are 
crash-on-failure, which happens to trigger crashes on a regular 
schedule, where most of the crashes are 'harmless' situation except 
that they crash the systems for good.

So I think defaulting to soft failures is the right approach.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/