Re: [PATCH v8 1/3] x86: Expand exception table to allow new handling options

From: Andy Lutomirski
Date: Fri Jan 08 2016 - 20:53:19 EST

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Tony Luck <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Huge amounts of help from Andy Lutomirski and Borislav Petkov to
> produce this. Andy provided the inspiration to add classes to the
> exception table with a clever bit-squeezing trick, Boris pointed
> out how much cleaner it would all be if we just had a new field.
> Linus Torvalds blessed the expansion with:
> I'd rather not be clever in order to save just a tiny amount of space
> in the exception table, which isn't really criticial for anybody.
> The third field is a simple integer indexing into an array of handler
> functions (I thought it couldn't be a relative pointer like the other
> fields because a module may have its ex_table loaded more than 2GB away
> from the handler function - but that may not be actually true. But the
> integer is pretty flexible, we are only really using low two bits now).
> We start out with three handlers:
> 0: Legacy - just jumps the to fixup IP
> 1: Fault - provide the trap number in %ax to the fixup code
> 2: Cleaned up legacy for the uaccess error hack

I think I preferred the relative function pointer approach.

Also, I think it would be nicer if the machine check code would invoke
the handler regardless of which handler (or class) is selected. Then
the handlers that don't want to handle #MC can just reject them.

Also, can you make the handlers return bool instead of int?