From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Mosberger Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:36:18 +0000 Subject: RE: [patch] Memory Error Handling Improvement Message-Id: <17084.31954.385948.362059@napali.hpl.hp.com> List-Id: References: <200506231730.j5NHUNa96698484@clink.americas.sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <200506231730.j5NHUNa96698484@clink.americas.sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org >>>>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:31:28 -0700, "Luck, Tony" said: >> Fine, but what about my suggestion of just presuming that the access >> came for user-level unless you can prove otherwise? Tony> If the presumption is wrong, then you'll kill an innocent user process. As opposed to panic'ing the kernel? That doesn't strike me as a big problem. ;-) Tony> Worse, you will let a corrupted kernel carry on running. It'd boil down to the question of what the likelihood is that the kernel would be touching a user-mapped page whose contents it depends on for correct operation. (If it is not a user-mapped page, you'd obviously _not_ conclude that the MCA was triggered by user-level.) --david