[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1323891195.23971.60.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:33:15 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/5 v2] x86: Allow NMIs to hit breakpoints in i386
On Wed, 2011-12-14 at 10:26 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 12/13/2011 06:52 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > With i386, NMIs and breakpoints use the current stack and they
> > do not reset the stack pointer to a fix point that might corrupt
> > a previous NMI or breakpoint (as it does in x86_64). But NMIs are
> > still not made to be re-entrant, and need to prevent the case that
> > an NMI hitting a breakpoint (which does an iret), doesn't allow
> > another NMI to run.
>
> Okay... what about the other way around: avoiding the IRET when invoked
> from an NMI context and therefore leaving NMI disabled until the
> appropriate time?
Linus was against this approach. He didn't want the ugliness of NMI to
spread to other code, by adding ugly handlers around the 'iret' of
breakpoints and exceptions.
-- Steve
--
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