> And this tolerant check looks fishy to me:
>
>if (s->sev >= MCE_UC_SEVERITY && ctx == IN_KERNEL) {
>if (panic_on_oops || tolerant < 1)
>return MCE_PANIC_SEVERITY;
>}
>
> since we set it to 1 by default. But
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 09:53:56PM +, Luck, Tony wrote:
> It is far from obvious that mce_severity() will always say that an
> error detected inside the kernel will be fatal.
Oh yeah, it needs a good cleansing rewrite, that's for sure.
And this tolerant check looks fishy to me:
>> I think the comment is still not explaining the big part of what the
>> discussion was about -- i.e. if it was in kernel context, we always
>> panic.
>
> I thought the pointer to mce_severity was enough? People should open an
> editor and look at the function and at its gory insanity. :-P
It
I think the comment is still not explaining the big part of what the
discussion was about -- i.e. if it was in kernel context, we always
panic.
I thought the pointer to mce_severity was enough? People should open an
editor and look at the function and at its gory insanity. :-P
It is far
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 09:53:56PM +, Luck, Tony wrote:
It is far from obvious that mce_severity() will always say that an
error detected inside the kernel will be fatal.
Oh yeah, it needs a good cleansing rewrite, that's for sure.
And this tolerant check looks fishy to me:
And this tolerant check looks fishy to me:
if (s-sev = MCE_UC_SEVERITY ctx == IN_KERNEL) {
if (panic_on_oops || tolerant 1)
return MCE_PANIC_SEVERITY;
}
since we set it to 1 by default. But I'll look
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 09:47:38AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> It may be worth at least pointing out that mce_severity looks at
>> whether we faulted from kernel context. I missed that the first time
>> around because mce_severity
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 09:47:38AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> It may be worth at least pointing out that mce_severity looks at
> whether we faulted from kernel context. I missed that the first time
> around because mce_severity doesn't take a pt_regs pointer.
Right, but next time we talk
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 4:06 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 12:51:10PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>> I think the comment is still not explaining the big part of what the
>> discussion was about -- i.e. if it was in kernel context, we always
>> panic.
>
> I thought the pointer
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 12:51:10PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> I think the comment is still not explaining the big part of what the
> discussion was about -- i.e. if it was in kernel context, we always
> panic.
I thought the pointer to mce_severity was enough? People should open an
editor and
On Mon, 26 May 2014, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 03:13:54PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Seems like a comment would be in order, though.
>
> ---
> From: Borislav Petkov
> Subject: [PATCH] x86, MCE: Flesh out when to panic comment
>
> Re
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 03:13:54PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Seems like a comment would be in order, though.
---
From: Borislav Petkov
Subject: [PATCH] x86, MCE: Flesh out when to panic comment
Recent discussion (link below) showed that it is not really clear what
appropriate recov
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 03:13:54PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Seems like a comment would be in order, though.
---
From: Borislav Petkov b...@suse.de
Subject: [PATCH] x86, MCE: Flesh out when to panic comment
Recent discussion (link below) showed that it is not really clear what
appropriate
On Mon, 26 May 2014, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 03:13:54PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Seems like a comment would be in order, though.
---
From: Borislav Petkov b...@suse.de
Subject: [PATCH] x86, MCE: Flesh out when to panic comment
Recent discussion (link below
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 12:51:10PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
I think the comment is still not explaining the big part of what the
discussion was about -- i.e. if it was in kernel context, we always
panic.
I thought the pointer to mce_severity was enough? People should open an
editor and look
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 4:06 AM, Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 12:51:10PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
I think the comment is still not explaining the big part of what the
discussion was about -- i.e. if it was in kernel context, we always
panic.
I thought the
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 09:47:38AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
It may be worth at least pointing out that mce_severity looks at
whether we faulted from kernel context. I missed that the first time
around because mce_severity doesn't take a pt_regs pointer.
Right, but next time we talk about
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 09:47:38AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
It may be worth at least pointing out that mce_severity looks at
whether we faulted from kernel context. I missed that the first time
around because
18 matches
Mail list logo
