Date:	Sun, 18 Jul 2010 14:03:54 +0300
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...tedt.homelinux.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] x86_64 page fault NMI-safe

On 07/15/2010 04:23 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>  wrote:
>    
>> I think the %rip check should be pretty simple - exactly because there
>> is only a single point where the race is open between that 'mov' and
>> the 'iret'. So it's simpler than the (similar) thing we do for
>> debug/nmi stack fixup for sysenter that has to check a range.
>>      
> So this is what I think it might look like, with the %rip in place.
> And I changed the "nmi_stack_ptr" thing to have both the pointer and a
> flag - because it turns out that in the single-instruction race case,
> we actually want the old pointer.
>
> Totally untested, of course. But _something_ like this might work:
>
> #
> # Two per-cpu variables: a "are we nested" flag (one byte), and
> # a "if we're nested, what is the %rsp for the nested case".
> #
> # The reason for why we can't just clear the saved-rsp field and
> # use that as the flag is that we actually want to know the saved
> # rsp for the special case of having a nested NMI happen on the
> # final iret of the unnested case.
> #
> nmi:
> 	cmpb $0,%__percpu_seg:nmi_stack_nesting
> 	jne nmi_nested_corrupt_and_return
> 	cmpq $nmi_iret_address,0(%rsp)
> 	je nmi_might_be_nested
> 	# create new stack
> is_unnested_nmi:
> 	# Save some space for nested NMI's. The exception itself
> 	# will never use more space, but it might use less (since
> 	# if will be a kernel-kernel transition). But the nested
> 	# exception will want two save registers and a place to
> 	# save the original CS that it will corrupt
> 	subq $64,%rsp
>
> 	# copy the five words of stack info. 96 = 64 + stack
> 	# offset of ss.
> 	pushq 96(%rsp)   # ss
> 	pushq 96(%rsp)   # rsp
> 	pushq 96(%rsp)   # eflags
> 	pushq 96(%rsp)   # cs
> 	pushq 96(%rsp)   # rip
>
> 	# and set the nesting flags
> 	movq %rsp,%__percpu_seg:nmi_stack_ptr
> 	movb $0xff,%__percpu_seg:nmi_stack_nesting
>
>    

By trading off some memory, we don't need this trickery.  We can 
allocate two nmi stacks, so the code becomes:

nmi:
     cmpb $0, %__percpu_seg:nmi_stack_nesting
     je unnested_nmi
     cmpq $nmi_iret,(%rsp)
     jne unnested_nmi
     cmpw $__KERNEL_CS,8(%rsp)
     jne unnested_nmi
     popf
     retfq
unnested_nmi:
     xorq $(nmi_stack_1 ^ nmi_stack_2),%__percpu_seg:tss_nmi_ist_entry
     movb $1, __percpu_seg:nmi_stack_nesting
regular_nmi:
     ...
regular_nmi_end:
     movb $0, __percpu_seg:nmi_stack_nesting
nmi_iret:
     iretq




-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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