[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1351864429.4004.131.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 09:53:49 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
Cc: sqazi@...gle.com, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, hpa@...ux.intel.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [PATCH] x86: Don't clobber top of pt_regs in nested NMI
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 09:51 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 19:53 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> > There doesn't appear to be anything special about these adjustments, so I
> > don't see what help would be required here - it ought to be the normal use
> > of CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET that needs adding.
>
> This change look fine to you?
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S b/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S
> index 52edf92..7ba5342 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S
> @@ -1796,10 +1796,12 @@ repeat_nmi:
>
> /* Make another copy, this one may be modified by nested NMIs */
> addq $(10*8), %rsp
> + CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET -10*8
> .rept 5
> pushq_cfi -6*8(%rsp)
> .endr
> subq $(5*8), %rsp
> + CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET 5*8
>
> CFI_DEF_CFA_OFFSET SS+8-RIP
> end_repeat_nmi:
>
Is that second one even needed? Or will the CFI_DEF_CFA_OFFSET SS+8-RIP
fix it?
-- 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