linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] x86 NMI-safe INT3 and Page Fault (v5)

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, 17 Apr 2008 13:29:19 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, hpa@...or.com, jeremy@...p.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	fche@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86 NMI-safe INT3 and Page Fault (v5)

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:14:10 -0400
Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org> wrote:

> +#define nmi_enter()					\
> +	do {						\
> +		lockdep_off();				\
> +		BUG_ON(hardnmi_count());		\
> +		add_preempt_count(HARDNMI_OFFSET);	\
> +		__irq_enter();				\
> +	} while (0)

<did it _have_ to be a macro?>

Doing BUG() inside an NMI should be OK most of the time.  But the
BUG-handling code does want to know if we're in interrupt context - at
least for the "fatal exception in interrupt" stuff, and probably other
things.

But afacit the failure to include HARDNMI_MASK in

 #define irq_count()	(preempt_count() & (HARDIRQ_MASK | SOFTIRQ_MASK))

will prevent that.

So.

Should we or should we not make in_interrupt() return true in NMI? 
"should", I expect.

If not, we'd need to do something else to communicate the current
processing state down to the BUG-handling code.

--
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/