From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756442AbbJAHPP (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Oct 2015 03:15:15 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com ([209.85.212.170]:36574 "EHLO mail-wi0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753073AbbJAHPK (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Oct 2015 03:15:10 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 09:15:06 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Linus Torvalds , Thomas Gleixner , Paolo Bonzini , xen-devel , Arjan van de Ven , Andrew Morton , KVM list , the arch/x86 maintainers , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/msr: Carry on after a non-"safe" MSR access fails without !panic_on_oops Message-ID: <20151001071505.GA21542@gmail.com> References: <130a3b7ef4788baae3a6fe71293ab17442bc9a0a.1442793572.git.luto@kernel.org> <20150921084642.GA30984@gmail.com> <20150930131002.GK2881@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20150930140122.GB3285@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > These could still be open coded in an inlined fashion, like the scheduler usage. > > We could have a raw_rdmsr for those. > > OTOH, I'm still not 100% convinced that this warn-but-don't-die behavior is > worth the effort. This isn't a frequent source of bugs to my knowledge, and we > don't try to recover from incorrect cr writes, out-of-bounds MMIO, etc, so do we > really gain much by rigging a recovery mechanism for rdmsr and wrmsr failures > for code that doesn't use the _safe variants? It's just the general principle really: don't crash the kernel on bootup. There's few things more user hostile than that. Also, this would maintain the status quo: since we now (accidentally) don't crash the kernel on distro kernels (but silently and unsafely ignore the faulting instruction), we should not regress that behavior (by adding the chance to crash again), but improve upon it. Thanks, Ingo