[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120910172736.GA14168@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 19:27:36 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] ptrace: Partly fix
set_task_blockstep()->update_debugctlmsr() logic
Sebastian, I am replying to my message because I removed your email
by mistake. Fortunately I can see it on marc.info...
> ptrace and uprobe are calling this function from process context. As
> long as you have here get_cpu() instead of local_irq_disable() you should
> be safe here.
local_irq_disable() looks more safe. We can have new users playing
with MSR_IA32_DEBUGCTLMSR from irq.
> perf
> uses raw_local_irqsave() (raw_* most likely due to -RT).
This is completely irrelevant, we alrady discussed this.
> I have no idea
> what you can against NMI unless not touching the register in NMI
> context.
Neither me, and this is documented in the changelog:
And afaics there is yet another problem: perf can play with
MSR_IA32_DEBUGCTLMSR from nmi, this obviously means that even
__switch_to_xtra() has problems.
and please note __switch_to_xtra() above, it has the same problem
by the same reason.
Oleg.
--
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