From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752501AbeDLGKq (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Apr 2018 02:10:46 -0400 Received: from szxga05-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.191]:6737 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750743AbeDLGKp (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Apr 2018 02:10:45 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 0/4] set VSESR_EL2 by user space and support NOTIFY_SEI notification To: James Morse CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , References: <1523309796-36423-1-git-send-email-gengdongjiu@huawei.com> From: gengdongjiu Message-ID: <5161fb31-e5bb-872c-3e12-d7d38326aaca@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 14:09:35 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.142.68.147] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi James， thanks for this mail. On 2018/4/10 22:15, James Morse wrote: > Hi Dongjiu Geng, > > On 09/04/18 22:36, Dongjiu Geng wrote: >> 1. Detect whether KVM can set set guest SError syndrome >> 2. Support to Set VSESR_EL2 and inject SError by user space. >> 3. Support live migration to keep SError pending state and VSESR_EL2 value. >> 4. ACPI 6.1 adds support for NOTIFY_SEI as a GHES notification mechanism, so support this >> notification in software, KVM or kernel ARCH code call handle_guest_sei() to let ACP driver >> to handle this notification. > > Please don't post code during the merge-window, will this apply to v4.17-rc1? We > can't know until its tagged. I do not know when it is merge-window. About the apply version, it does not have limited. > > > This series is doing two separate things, please split it into two series. OK, thanks! > > But on the ACPI front: I don't see how any OS can support your NOTIFY_SEI when > firmware is ignoring the normal world's PSTATE.A. > > The latest lobe of that discussion was on the list here: > https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1611496.html I have replied the mail. I still have some questions that need to clarify with you. After clarification, we will follow that. The question is in the reply of this mail "https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1611496.html" > > > As it is, we would need to spot SError being delivered while SError is masked, > spray nasty messages about firmware being horrifically buggy, then panic(). For > a corrected error, this looks bad, but its preferable to letting firmware > silently overwrite the exception registers, causing linux to spin through the > vectors 'eret' with all exceptions masked. > I still think its best to wait for firmware that does the right thing. Let us discuss that in another mail. In a summary, I think firmware follow below rule can be OK, right? 1. The exception came from the EL that SError should be routed to(according to hcr_EL2.{AMO, TGE}),but PSTATE.A was set, EL3 firmware can't deliver SError; 2. The exception came from the EL that SError should not be routed to(according to hcr_EL2.{AMO, TGE}),even though the PSTATE.A was set,EL3 firmware still deliver SError > > > Thanks, > > James > > . >