On May 21, 2014 5:51 AM, "Jiri Kosina" <jkos...@suse.cz> wrote: > > On Tue, 20 May 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > So the issue here is that we can have an NMI followed immediately by > > an MCE. The MCE code can call force_sig > > This is interesting by itself. force_sig() takes siglock spinlock. This > really looks like a deadlock sitting there waiting to happen.
ISTM the do_machine_check code ought to consider any kill-worthy MCE from kernel space to be non-recoverable, but I want to keep the scope of these patches under control. That being said, if an MCE that came from CPL0 never tried to return, this would be simpler. I don't know enough about the machine check architecture to know whether that's a reasonable thing to do. --Andy > > -- > Jiri Kosina > SUSE Labs > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/