Re: [patch V4 part 1 29/36] x86/mce: Send #MC singal from task work

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:48 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 11:02:09AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 7:13 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > I think this patch is correct, but I think it's only one small and not
> > that obviously wrong step away from being broken:
> >
> > >         if ((m.cs & 3) == 3) {
> > >                 /* If this triggers there is no way to recover. Die hard. */
> > >                 BUG_ON(!on_thread_stack() || !user_mode(regs));
> > > -               local_irq_enable();
> > > -               preempt_enable();
> > >
> > > -               if (kill_it || do_memory_failure(&m))
> > > -                       force_sig(SIGBUS);
> > > -               preempt_disable();
> > > -               local_irq_disable();
> > > +               current->mce_addr = m.addr;
> > > +               current->mce_status = m.mcgstatus;
> > > +               current->mce_kill_me.func = kill_me_maybe;
> > > +               if (kill_it)
> > > +                       current->mce_kill_me.func = kill_me_now;
> > > +               task_work_add(current, &current->mce_kill_me, true);
> >
> > This is fine if the source was CPL3, but it's not going to work if CPL
> > was 0.  We don't *currently* do this from CPL0, but people keep
> > wanting to.  So perhaps there should be a comment like:
> >
> > /*
> >  * The #MC originated at CPL3, so we know that we will go execute the
> > task_work before returning to the offending user code.
> >  */
> >
> > IOW, if we want to recover from CPL0 #MC, we will need a different mechanism.
>
> See part4-18's IDTRENTRY_NOIST. That will get us a clear CPL3/CPL0
> separation.

I will hold my breath.

>
> > I also confess a certain amount of sadness that my beautiful
> > haha-not-really-atomic-here mechanism isn't being used anymore. :(
>
> I think we have a subtely different interpretation of 'beautiful' here.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  And sometimes in the eye of the
person who wrote the code :)