[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <C3BF91EC.1B6D5%Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:17:32 +0000
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@...cam.ac.uk>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
CC: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH UPDATE] x86: ignore spurious faults
On 25/1/08 10:19, "Andi Kleen" <ak@...e.de> wrote:
>> Whether this a problem in light of Xen spurious faults depends on whether
>> NMI handlers touch dynamically-allocated data.
>
> How do you define dynamically-allocated data?
Anything that could have been a read-only pte or ldt page in a previous life
with no intervening TLB flush. So get_free_page(), kmalloc(), vmalloc(), ...
Actually I think we are fine, now I think about it some more, because we
only clear the software NMI-in-flight flag if the guest executes IRET via
the hypervisor. Most Xen Linux guests only do IRET via the hypervisor when
the current context is an NMI handler (additionally x86_64 also does so when
returning to ring 3). Most importantly for this case, we will *not* IRET via
the hypervisor when returning from a #PF context nested in an NMI context.
Hence the NMI-in-flight flag will not be cleared, and guest virtual NMIs
will not nest. So that's a relief!
-- Keir
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists