WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] X86 MCE: Add SRAR handler

>>> On 21.10.11 at 22:25, "Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I update a little for my former patch, as attached.
> For my former patch, you mainly have 2 concerns (list below). I double check 
> xen mce code, w/ my opinion append:

Those concerns were really just triggered by the patch, not directly
related to it. The patch itself looks okay to me.

> Concern 1: for SRAR IFU error, since RIPV=EIPV=0, it maybe an async error 
> which occur at guest but root from hypervisor.
> [Jinsong]: 
>     Yes, but EIPV didn't tell us where the error root from (it's just a 
> hint, warning us async possibility). 
>     It no need to overkill xen at mce isr, instead, at mce softirq we can 
> find out error root location and then handle accordingly:
>     * at mce isr:
>             /* a total insurance */
>             /* if error is async, we delay handle it at mce softirq */
>             if ( !(gstatus & MCG_STATUS_RIPV) && !guest_mode(regs))
>                 return -1;

I continue to think that guest_mode() must not be used without
EIPV, no matter what the purpose of the use.

>     * at mce softirq:
>             /* detect error location by bank->mc_addr */
>             /* handle different page OWNER cases at intel_memerr_dhandler() 
> and offline_page() */
>             /* who own, who take */
>             if (error page owner is guest)
>                 trigger vmce to guest;
>             else
>                 panic xen;

That part is certainly fine.

> Concern 2: If a guest accesses the hypervisor part of the GDT or page 
> tables, or some other shared data structure owned by the hypervisor (like the 
> M2P table), its handler may get utterly confused by being presented an 
> address it doesn't own and knows nothing about.
> [Jinsong]: for such cases, page owner would be dom_xen/dom_cow or NULL, but 
> not guest --> it would be handled at hypervisor, not triggering vmce to guest 
> --> 
> who own, who take.

That latter part of your explanation is fine too, but with the caveat that
the bogus use of guest_mode() above may have an overall effect on the
behavior.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>