[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52D95F77.4030908@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 08:51:03 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"Ren, Qiaowei" <qiaowei.ren@...el.com>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] x86, mpx: hook #BR exception handler to allocate
bound tables
On 01/17/2014 08:47 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> Right, so Steve and I played a couple of scenarios in IRC with this. So
> #BR is comparable with #PF, AFAICT, and as expected we don't take any
> locks when handling page faults in kernel space as we might deadlock.
>
> Now, what happens if a thread is sleeping on some lock down that
> GFP_KERNEL allocation path and another thread gets a #BR and goes that
> same mmap_pgoff path and tries to grab that same lock?
It goes to sleep. Same as if we take a page fault and have to page
something in.
> Also, what happens if you take a #BR in NMI context, say the NMI
> handler?
You should never, ever do that. We should never take a #BR in the
kernel, full stop -- if we do it is panic time.
> All I'm trying to say is, it might not be such a good idea to sleep in a
> fault handler...
A fault handler from user space is really nothing other than a different
kind of system call. It is nothing magic about it.
-hpa
--
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