From: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Tony Luck" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
"LKML Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
X86-kernel <x86@kernel.org>,
"Andy Lutomirski" <luto@amacapital.net>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
Jacon Jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@intel.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] x86/microcode: Avoid any chance of MCE's during microcode update
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2022 15:06:27 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yv0D88jxFkXcc18o@araj-dh-work> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yvz4/ASoX4SiXbhp@zn.tnic>
On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 04:19:40PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 12:30:49PM +0000, Ashok Raj wrote:
> > You will find out when system returns after reboot and hopefully wasn't
> > promoted to a cold-boot which will loose MCE banks.
>
> Not good enough!
I probably misread your question.. are you suggesting we add some WARN when
we initiate late_load? I thought you were asking if the HW must signal
something and OS should log when an MCE happens if MCIP=1
>
> This should issue a warning in dmesg that a potential MCE while update
> is running would cause a lockup. That is if we don't disable MCE around
> it.
>
> If we decide to disable MCE, it should say shutdown.
Ok, that clarifies it.. "IF we choose to set MCIP=1, we should tell users
that hell can break loose, get under the table" :-)
>
> > Meaning deal with the effect of a really rare MCE. Rather than trying to
> > avoid it. Taking the MCE is more important than finishing the update,
> > and loosing what the error signaled was trying to convey.
>
> Right now I'm inclined to not do anything and warn of a potential rare
> situation.
Encouraging.. So I'll drop that patch from the list next time around.
>
> > > > Shutdown, shutdown.. There is only 1 MCE no matter how many CPUs you have.
> > >
> > > Because all CPUs are executing the loop? Or how do you decide this?
> >
> > Fatal errors signaled with PCC=1 in the MCAx.STATUS is *ALWAYS*
>
> What does that have to do with
>
> "There is only 1 MCE no matter how many CPUs you have."
>
> ?
>
> That's bullsh*t. Especially if the machine can do LMCE.
Well, not outlandish :)
LMCE is only for recoverable errors. When we have a fatal error, sometimes
the signalling and consumption of poison are going in different directions.
In order to minimize exposure of bad data from being consumed,
*ALL* Intel processors have always broadcast fatal errors. This is the
history behind why we broadcast.
BTW: This is all legacy behavior. Nothing should come as surprise.
LMCE is best effort. This is the current state.
Cheers,
Ashok
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-17 15:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-17 5:11 [PATCH v3 0/5] Making microcode late-load robust Ashok Raj
2022-08-17 5:11 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] x86/microcode/intel: Check against CPU signature before saving microcode Ashok Raj
2022-08-17 7:43 ` Ingo Molnar
2022-08-17 10:45 ` Ashok Raj
2022-08-19 10:24 ` Borislav Petkov
2022-08-23 11:13 ` Ashok Raj
2022-08-24 19:27 ` Borislav Petkov
2022-08-25 3:27 ` Ashok Raj
2022-08-26 16:24 ` Borislav Petkov
2022-08-26 17:18 ` Ashok Raj
2022-08-26 17:29 ` Borislav Petkov
2022-08-17 5:11 ` [PATCH v3 2/5] x86/microcode/intel: Allow a late-load only if a min rev is specified Ashok Raj
2022-08-17 7:45 ` Ingo Molnar
2022-08-19 11:11 ` Borislav Petkov
2022-08-23 0:08 ` Ashok Raj
2022-08-24 19:52 ` Borislav Petkov
2022-08-25 4:02 ` Ashok Raj
2022-08-26 12:09 ` Borislav Petkov
2022-08-17 5:11 ` [PATCH v3 3/5] x86/microcode: Avoid any chance of MCE's during microcode update Ashok Raj
2022-08-17 7:41 ` Ingo Molnar
2022-08-17 7:58 ` Ingo Molnar
2022-08-17 8:09 ` Borislav Petkov
2022-08-17 11:57 ` Ashok Raj
2022-08-17 12:10 ` Borislav Petkov
2022-08-17 12:30 ` Ashok Raj
2022-08-17 14:19 ` Borislav Petkov
2022-08-17 15:06 ` Ashok Raj [this message]
2022-08-29 14:23 ` Andy Lutomirski
2022-08-17 11:40 ` Ashok Raj
2022-08-17 5:11 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] x86/x2apic: Support x2apic self IPI with NMI_VECTOR Ashok Raj
2022-08-17 5:11 ` [PATCH v3 5/5] x86/microcode: Place siblings in NMI loop while update in progress Ashok Raj
2022-08-30 19:15 ` Andy Lutomirski
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Yv0D88jxFkXcc18o@araj-dh-work \
--to=ashok.raj@intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=jacob.jun.pan@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox