[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0906151007560.3305@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca,
paulus@...ba.org, acme@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, penberg@...helsinki.fi,
vegard.nossum@...il.com, efault@....de, jeremy@...p.org,
npiggin@...e.de, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu
cc: linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:perfcounters/core] perf_counter: x86: Fix call-chain support
to use NMI-safe methods
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> __copy_from_user_inatomic() isn't NMI safe in that it can trigger
> the page fault handler which is another trap and its return path
> invokes IRET which will also close the NMI context.
That's not the only problem.
An even more fundamental problem is that the page fault handler is not
re-entrant because of simple the value in %cr2. So regardless of any
'iret' issues, you *CANNOT* take a page fault in an NMI, because the NMI
might happen while we're in the critical region of having taken another
page fault, but before we've saved off the value of %cr2 in that old page
fault.
If the NMI handler causes a page fault, it will corrupt the %cr2 of the
outer page fault. That's why the page fault is done with an interrupt
gate, and why we have that conditional local_irq_enable() in it.
So page faults are fundamentally only safe wrt normal interrupts, not NMI.
Linus
--
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