On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 09:22:13PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 01:44:50PM -0800, Tony Luck wrote:
> > @@ -1431,8 +1433,11 @@ noinstr void do_machine_check(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > mce_panic("Failed kernel mode recovery", &m, msg);
> > }
> >
> > - if (m.kflags & MCE_IN_KERNEL_COPYIN)
> > + if (m.kflags & MCE_IN_KERNEL_COPYIN) {
> > + if (current->mce_busy)
> > + mce_panic("Multiple copyin", &m, msg);
>
> So this: we're currently busy handling the first MCE, why do we must
> panic?
>
> Can we simply ignore all follow-up MCEs to that page?
If we s/all/some/ you are saying the same as Andy:
> So I tend to think that the machine check code should arrange to
> survive some reasonable number of duplicate machine checks.
> I.e., the page will get poisoned eventually and that poisoning is
> currently executing so all following MCEs are simply nothing new and we
> can ignore them.
>
> It's not like we're going to corrupt more data - we already are
> "corrupting" whole 4K.
>
> Am I making sense?
>
> Because if we do this, we won't have to pay attention to any get_user()
> callers and whatnot - we simply ignore and the solution is simple and
> you won't have to touch any get_user() callers...
Changing get_user() is a can of worms. I don't think its a very big can.
Perhaps two or three dozen places where code needs to change to account
for the -ENXIO return ... but touching a bunch of different subsystems
it is likley to take a while to get everyone in agreement.
I'll try out this new approach, and if it works, I'll post a v3 patch.
Thanks
-Tony
