[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0906151700300.9538@sister.anvils>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:02:46 +0100 (BST)
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
paulus@...ba.org, acme@...hat.com, efault@....de, npiggin@...e.de,
tglx@...utronix.de, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Subject: Re: [tip:perfcounters/core] x86: Add NMI types for kmap_atomic
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> Note that Oprofile uses the same method of __copy_user_inatomic() in
> arch/x86/oprofile/backtrace.c, but i believe that code is broken - i
> doubt the call-chain support for user-space stacks ever worked in
> oprofile - with perfcounters i can make this method crash under
> load. (we re-enter the NMI which due to IST executes over the exact
> same, still pending NMI frame. Kaboom.)
>
> I saw you being involved with the Oprofile code 3 years ago:
>
> | commit c34d1b4d165c67b966bca4aba026443d7ff161eb
> | Author: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
> | Date: Sat Oct 29 18:16:32 2005 -0700
> |
> | [PATCH] mm: kill check_user_page_readable
>
> That method of __copy_user_inatomic(), while elegant, is subtly
> wrong in an NMI context. We really must avoid taking faults there.
Yes, I'm afraid that subtlety escaped me - thanks for explaining.
Hugh
--
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