Re: [PATCH] [3/4] x86: MCE: Improve mce_get_rip

Hidetoshi Seto
2009-04-24T10:12:36Z

Huang Ying wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 15:28 +0800, Hidetoshi Seto wrote:
>> Huang Ying wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 14:16 +0800, Hidetoshi Seto wrote:
>>>> One question is: if (RIPV,EIPV) = (0,0), then is the IP on the stack
>>>> really invalid value, or is it still point IP when MCE is generated?
>>>> I suppose it is not invalid. If a processor encounters MCE and if it
>>>> is not sure what happened, then it will store the IP on the stack,
>>>> indicating neither of flags.
>>>>
>>>> If this supposition is correct, the best way is pick the value on
>>>> the stack unconditionally, and record valid flags together.
>>> According to spec, the IP on stack can be not related to MCE if
>>> (RIPV,EIPV) = (0,0). So it is meaningless to report them. If you report
>>> them unconditionally, you just push the logic to user space or
>>> administrator.
>> Sorry, I could not find good page in the spec (Intel64 and IA-32 ASDM)...
>> Could you point one?
>
> 14.3.1.2 IA32_MCG_STATUS MSR
> * EIPV

Quote:
"EIPV (error IP valid) flag, bit 1 ― Indicates (when set) that the
instruction pointed to by the instruction pointer pushed onto the
stack when the machine-check exception is generated is directly
associated with the error. When this flag is cleared, the instruction
pointed to may not be associated with the error."

My understanding is:
If EIPV is 1:
IP value on the stack is one pushed when the MCE is generated,
and the IP is associated with the error.
If EIPV is 0:
IP value on the stack is one pushed when the MCE is generated,
but the IP is not associated with the error.

So I repeat my question again:
You stated in the description of this patch:
"mce_get_rip() is used to get IP when MCE is generated, ..."
Is this right?

If right, I think EIPV is not matter.
If not, please rewrite the description.

>> I believe that the IP with (RIPV,EIPV) = (1,0) is "not associated with the
>> error" too, so is it meaningless to report the IP?
>> If you think so then correct fix is replacing RIPV check by EIPV check.
>
> In theory, that is possible (not associated), but I think in practical,
> IP with (RIPV,EIPV) = (1,0) is still meaningful as Andi said.

Then, why IP with (0,0) is meaningless?
Why not use it with the !INEXACT! marker?

>> From another point of view, the reported IP will be one of followings:
>> - IP that associated with error (= related to MCE)
>> - IP that the interrupted program can restart from
>> - IP that when MCE is generated
>> Are there no way to distinguish them in user space?
>
> I think you just push same logic to user space.

No, I just want a logical explanation.

It seems we already can provide records with "inexact" value.
Why not expand such cases?

Thanks,
H.Seto