On Thu, 2017-09-07 at 00:50 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 21:13 +0000, Leo Li wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Joakim Tjernlund [mailto:joakim.tjernl...@infinera.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 3:54 PM > > > To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Leo Li <leoyang...@nxp.com>; York Sun > > > <york....@nxp.com> > > > Subject: Re: Machine Check in P2010(e500v2) > > > > > > On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 20:28 +0000, Leo Li wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Joakim Tjernlund [mailto:joakim.tjernl...@infinera.com] > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 3:17 PM > > > > > To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Leo Li <leoyang...@nxp.com>; York > > > > > Sun <york....@nxp.com> > > > > > Subject: Re: Machine Check in P2010(e500v2) > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 19:31 +0000, Leo Li wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: York Sun > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 10:38 AM > > > > > > > To: Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernl...@infinera.com>; linuxppc- > > > > > > > d...@lists.ozlabs.org; Leo Li <leoyang...@nxp.com> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Machine Check in P2010(e500v2) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Scott is no longer with Freescale/NXP. Adding Leo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 09/05/2017 01:40 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > > > > > > So after some debugging I found this bug: > > > > > > > > @@ -996,7 +998,7 @@ int fsl_pci_mcheck_exception(struct pt_regs > > > > > > *regs) > > > > > > > > if (is_in_pci_mem_space(addr)) { > > > > > > > > if (user_mode(regs)) { > > > > > > > > pagefault_disable(); > > > > > > > > - ret = get_user(regs->nip, &inst); > > > > > > > > + ret = get_user(inst, (__u32 __user > > > > > > > > + *)regs->nip); > > > > > > > > pagefault_enable(); > > > > > > > > } else { > > > > > > > > ret = probe_kernel_address(regs->nip, > > > > > > > > inst); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, the kernel still locked up after fixing that. > > > > > > > > Now I wonder why this fixup is there in the first place? The > > > > > > > > routine will not really fixup the insn, just return 0xffffffff > > > > > > > > for the failing read and then advance the process NIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > You are right. The code here only gives 0xffffffff to the load > > > > > > instructions and > > > > > > > > > > continue with the next instruction when the load instruction is > > > > > causing the machine check. This will prevent a system lockup when > > > > > reading from PCI/RapidIO device which is link down. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know what is actual problem in your case. Maybe it is a > > > > > > write > > > > > > > > > > instruction instead of read? Or the code is in a infinite loop > > > > > waiting for a > > > > > > valid > > > > > read result? Are you able to do some further debugging with the NIP > > > > > correctly printed? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > According to the MC it is a Read and the NIP also leads to a read in > > > > > the > > > > > > program. > > > > > ATM, I have disabled the fixup but I will enable that again. > > > > > Question, is it safe add a small printk when this MC happens(after > > > > > fixing up)? I need to see that it has happened as the error is > > > > > somewhat > > > > > > random. > > > > > > > > I think it is safe to add printk as the current machine check handlers > > > > are also > > > > > > using printk. > > > > > > I hope so, but if the fixup fires there is no printk at all so I was a > > > bit unsure. > > > Don't like this fixup though, is there not a better way than faking a > > > read to user > > > space(or kernel for that matter) ? > > > > I don't have a better idea. Without the fixup, the offending load > > instruction will never finish if there is anything wrong with the backing > > device and freeze the whole system. Do you have any suggestion in mind? > > > > But it never finishes the load, it just fakes a load of 0xfffffffff, for user > space I rather have it signal > a SIGBUS but that does not seem to work either, at least not for us but that > could be a bug in general MC code > maybe. > This fixup might be valid for kernel only as it has never worked for user > space due to the bug I found. > > Where can I read about this errata ?
I have look high and low an cannot find an errata which maps to this fixup. The closest I get is A-005125 which seems to have another workaround, I cannot find any evidence that this workaround has been applied in Linux, can you? Jocke
