[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140429100345.3f76a5bd@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 10:03:45 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Salman Qazi <sqazi@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>,
Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: 64bit x86: NMI nesting still buggy?
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:05:55 +0200 (CEST)
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz> wrote:
> According to 38.4 of [1], when SMM mode is entered while the CPU is
> handling NMI, the end result might be that upon exit from SMM, NMIs will
> be re-enabled and latched NMI delivered as nested [2].
Note, if this were true, then the x86_64 hardware would be extremely
buggy. That's because NMIs are not made to be nested. If SMM's come in
during an NMI and re-enables the NMI, then *all* software would break.
That would basically make NMIs useless.
The only time I've ever witness problems (and I stress NMIs all the
time), is when the NMI itself does a fault. Which my patch set handles
properly. I've also stressed this on boxes that do have SMIs and SMMs.
Now, you can have a bad BIOS that does re-enable NMIs from SMMs or
SMIs, but then you need to take that up with your vendor.
-- 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