linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 4/6] x86, NMI, Rewrite NMI handler

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:	Fri, 10 Sep 2010 18:03:56 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/6] x86, NMI, Rewrite NMI handler

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:56:05 -0400
Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:51:03AM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> > The original NMI handler is quite outdated in many aspects. This
> > patch try to fix it.
> > 
> > In original code, NMI reason io port (0x61) is only processed on
> > BSP. This makes it impossible to hot-remove BSP. To solve the issue,
> > a raw spinlock is used to make the port can be processed on any CPU.
> 
> Do we really want to use a spinlock inside the nmi handler?

As long as it's only between CPUs
(that is only ever used between different NMI handlers) 
that's fine.  It's certainly safer than having races between CPUs.

> I thought the NMIs sent to the io port are only routed to one cpu as
> determined by the io-apic?  Is it spread out to other cpus now?

There can be cases where it can happen I believe.

-Andi
 
-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/