linux-kernel - Re: [tip:x86/debug] x86/kdump: No need to disable ioapic/ lapic in crash path

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]

Message-ID: <20120220152417.GV9751@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:24:17 -0500
From:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To:	HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	ebiederm@...ssion.com, yinghai@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
	vgoyal@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	mingo@...e.hu, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/debug] x86/kdump: No need to disable ioapic/ lapic in
 crash path

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 02:17:33PM +0900, HATAYAMA Daisuke wrote:
> From: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
> Subject: Re: [tip:x86/debug] x86/kdump: No need to disable ioapic/ lapic in crash path
> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:18:42 -0500
> 
> > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:49:16AM +0900, HATAYAMA Daisuke wrote:
> >> A few days ago I investigted the case where system is reseted due to
> >> triple fault caused by the NMI after idt is disabled in
> >> machine_kexec. I didn't see the reset when trigering the kdump with
> >> NMI since the NMI is masked until next iret instruction executed as
> >> described in 6.7.2. Handling Multiple NMIs of Intel Manual Vol.3A.
> >> The NMI mask remains untill the first iret execution on the 2nd
> >> kernel: just the return path of the first kernel_thread invocation for
> >> init process. The exact path is:
> > 
> > hmm.  So even though the local apic was disabled you still got an NMI?
> > That could have been from an external NMI.  I forget how that is wired up,
> > if it goes through the IOAPIC to the Local APIC or directly to the NMI pin
> > on the cpu.
> > 
> 
> Please don't confused. I used RHEL kernels based on 2.6.18 and
> 2.6.32. I didn't use the patch disabling local apic.

Sure.  Those kernels should be using the 'disable_local_APIC' code.  My
patch just removed that call, IOW it stops disabling local apic or a
simpler way is to say it keeps the local apic enabled.

My question stills stands then, you might have experienced an external
NMI, but I am not entirely sure.


> 
> >> 
> >>   switch_to
> >>   -> ret_from_fork
> >>      -> int_ret_from_sys_call
> >>         -> retint_restore_args
> >>            -> irq_return
> >> 
> >> At that phase idt is already set up and kdump works.
> >> 
> >> From the discussion I interpret kdump doesn't assume this behaviour,
> >> right?
> > 
> > probably not.
> > 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> >> 
> >> BTW, does anyone know the detail of the NMI mask? I couldn't figure
> >> out about it from the Intel spec more than ``certain hardware
> >> conditions''... I expect those who look at here are x86 NMI experts.
> > 
> > I don't understand the question.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Don
> > 
> 
> Fig 10-4 explaining Local APIC Structure says INIT/NMI/SMI are
> directly sent to CPU Core, but the later part of this route is not
> explained formally anyware. Only the explanation is the sentence in
> 6.7 Nonmaskable Interrupt (NMI):
> 
>   The processor also invokes certain hardware conditions to insure
>   that no other interrupts, including NMI interrupts, are received
>   until the NMI handler has completed executing.
> 
> I'm just wondering if this is explained more formally anyware.

It might be I just don't know where.  I just view the NMI as an exception.
Each cpu exception has a priority.  NMI has a higher priority than
interrupts but a lower priority that say INIT.  Therefore when the cpu
gets an exception it classifies it based on priority.  Higher priorities
will interrupt the current exception, such as NMI, while lower priorities
will wait until the current exception is finished.

To me those would be the hardware conditions, but that is my
interpretation.

Cheers,
Don

> 
> Thanks.
> HATAYAMA, Daisuke
> 
--
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/