linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf, x86: try to handle unknown nmis with running perfctrs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:31:33 +0400
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
Cc:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"fweisbec@...il.com" <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf, x86: try to handle unknown nmis with running
	perfctrs

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 03:24:19PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> On 10.08.10 15:24:28, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 09:05:41PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> > > On 10.08.10 13:24:51, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > > 
> > > > It gets masked on NMI arrival, at least for some models (Core Duo, P4,
> > > > P6 M and I suspect more theh that, that was the reason oprofile has
> > > > it, also there is a note in SDM V3a page 643).
> > > 
> > > Yes, that's right, I never noticed that. Maybe it is better to
> > > implement the apic write it in model specific code then.
> > > 
> > 
> > Perhaps we can make it simplier I think, ie like it was before -- we just
> > move it under your new DIE_NMIUNKNOWN, in separate patch of course. Though
> > I'm fine with either way.
> 
> I do not understand why you want to put this in the 'unknown'
> path. Isn't it necessary to unmask the vector with every call of the
> nmi handler?
> 
> -Robert
> 

Heh, it's simple - I'm screwed. Robert you're right, of course it should NOT
be under every 'unknown' nmi. I thought about small optimization here, but
I think all this should be done only _after_ your patch is merged.

Sorry for confuse ;)
 
	-- Cyrill
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/