Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] x86/microcode: Avoid any chance of MCE's during microcode update

Borislav Petkov
2022-08-17T14:19:56Z

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!

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.

> 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.

> > > 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.

> I'm waiting for the results. :-). And if you feel we can merge the
> - Patch1 - bug fix
> - Patch2 - min-rev id
>
> I do have the comments from Ingo captured, but I'll wait for other comments
> before i resend just those 2 and we can leave the NMI handling to get more
> testing and review before we consider.

No, you need to go read Documentation/process/.

I'm tired of having to explain to you how the kernel development process
works. You send your set, wait for a week, collect feedback and then you
send a new revision.

Not hammer people with patchsets every day.

This is not how that works.

If someone's breathing down your neck lemme know - I'd like to talk to
him/her.

Ok?!

--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.