From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/22] x86,mce: Delete ist_begin_non_atomic()
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:42:23 +0100
Message-ID: <20200219174223.GE30966@zn.tnic>
References: <20200219144724.800607165@infradead.org>
 <20200219150744.488895196@infradead.org>
 <20200219171309.GC32346@zn.tnic>
 <CALCETrWBEDjenqze3wVc6TkUt_g+OFx9TQbYysLH+6fku=aWjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Return-path: <linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:33670 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1726518AbgBSRmc (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 19 Feb 2020 12:42:32 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrWBEDjenqze3wVc6TkUt_g+OFx9TQbYysLH+6fku=aWjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-arch.vger.kernel.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, gustavo@embeddedor.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, paulmck@kernel.org, Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 09:21:48AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Unless there is a signal pending and the signal setup code is about to
> hit the same failed memory.  I suppose we can just treat cases like
> this as "oh well, time to kill the whole system".
>
> But we should genuinely agree that we're okay with deferring this handling.

Good catch!

static void exit_to_usermode_loop(struct pt_regs *regs, u32 cached_flags)
{

	...

		/* deal with pending signal delivery */
                if (cached_flags & _TIF_SIGPENDING)
                        do_signal(regs);

                if (cached_flags & _TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME) {
                        clear_thread_flag(TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME);
                        tracehook_notify_resume(regs);
                        rseq_handle_notify_resume(NULL, regs);
                }


Err, can we make task_work run before we handle signals? Or there's a
reason it is run in this order?

Comment over task_work_add() says:

 * This is like the signal handler which runs in kernel mode, but it doesn't
 * try to wake up the @task.

which sounds to me like this should really run before the signal
handlers...

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette