[PATCH v2 3/3] powerpc: machine check interrupt is a non-maskable interrupt

[Christophe LEROY]

Le 09/10/2018 à 13:16, Nicholas Piggin a écrit :
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 09:36:18 +0000
> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy at c-s.fr> wrote:
> 
>> On 10/09/2018 05:30 AM, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 06:46:30 +0200
>>> Christophe LEROY <christophe.leroy at c-s.fr> wrote:
>>>    
>>>> Le 09/10/2018 à 06:32, Nicholas Piggin a écrit :
>>>>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 17:39:11 +0200
>>>>> Christophe LEROY <christophe.leroy at c-s.fr> wrote:
>>>>>       
>>>>>> Hi Nick,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 19/07/2017 à 08:59, Nicholas Piggin a écrit :
>>>>>>> Use nmi_enter similarly to system reset interrupts. This uses NMI
>>>>>>> printk NMI buffers and turns off various debugging facilities that
>>>>>>> helps avoid tripping on ourselves or other CPUs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>      arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c | 9 ++++++---
>>>>>>>      1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c
>>>>>>> index 2849c4f50324..6d31f9d7c333 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c
>>>>>>> @@ -789,8 +789,10 @@ int machine_check_generic(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>      void machine_check_exception(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>>>>>>      {
>>>>>>> -	enum ctx_state prev_state = exception_enter();
>>>>>>>      	int recover = 0;
>>>>>>> +	bool nested = in_nmi();
>>>>>>> +	if (!nested)
>>>>>>> +		nmi_enter();
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This alters preempt_count, then when die() is called
>>>>>> in_interrupt() returns true allthough the trap didn't happen in
>>>>>> interrupt, so oops_end() panics for "fatal exception in interrupt"
>>>>>> instead of gently sending SIGBUS the faulting app.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for tracking that down.
>>>>>       
>>>>>> Any idea on how to fix this ?
>>>>>
>>>>> I would say we have to deliver the sigbus by hand.
>>>>>
>>>>>        if ((user_mode(regs)))
>>>>>            _exception(SIGBUS, regs, BUS_MCEERR_AR, regs->nip);
>>>>>        else
>>>>>            die("Machine check", regs, SIGBUS);
>>>>>       
>>>>
>>>> And what about all the other things done by 'die()' ?
>>>>
>>>> And what if it is a kernel thread ?
>>>>
>>>> In one of my boards, I have a kernel thread regularly checking the HW,
>>>> and if it gets a machine check I expect it to gently stop and the die
>>>> notification to be delivered to all registered notifiers.
>>>>
>>>> Until before this patch, it was working well.
>>>
>>> I guess the alternative is we could check regs->trap for machine
>>> check in the die test. Complication is having to account for MCE
>>> in an interrupt handler.
>>>
>>>          if (in_interrupt()) {
>>>                   if (!IS_MCHECK_EXC(regs) || (irq_count() - (NMI_OFFSET + HARDIRQ_OFFSET)))
>>>                       panic("Fatal exception in interrupt");
>>>          }
>>>
>>> Something like that might work for you? We needs a ppc64 macro for the
>>> MCE, and can probably add something like in_nmi_from_interrupt() for
>>> the second part of the test.
>>
>> Don't know, I'm away from home on business trip so I won't be able to
>> test anything before next week. However it looks more or less like a
>> hack, doesn't it ?
> 
> I thought it seemed okay (with the right functions added). Actually it
> could be a bit nicer to do this, then it works generally :
> 
>           if (in_interrupt()) {
>                    if (!in_nmi() || in_nmi_from_interrupt())
>                        panic("Fatal exception in interrupt");
>           }
> 
>>
>> What about the following ?
> 
> Hmm, in some ways maybe it's nicer. One complication is I would like the
> same thing to be available for platform specific machine check
> handlers, so then you need to pass is_in_interrupt to them. Which you
> can do without any problem... But is it cleaner than the above?

For me it looks cleaner than twiddle the preempt_count depending on 
whether we were or not already in nmi() .

Let's draft something and see what it looks like.


> 
> I guess one advantage of yours is that a BUG somewhere in the NMI path
> will panic the system. Or is that a disadvantage?

Why would it panic the system more than now ? And is it an issue at all 
? Doesn't BUG() panic in any case ?

Christophe