[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140429100652.56c8c07f@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 10:06:52 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
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 06:29:04 -0700
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > [2] "A special case can occur if an SMI handler nests inside an NMI
> > handler and then another NMI occurs. During NMI interrupt
> > handling, NMI interrupts are disabled, so normally NMI interrupts
> > are serviced and completed with an IRET instruction one at a
> > time. When the processor enters SMM while executing an NMI
> > handler, the processor saves the SMRAM state save map but does
> > not save the attribute to keep NMI interrupts disabled.
> > Potentially, an NMI could be latched (while in SMM or upon exit)
> > and serviced upon exit of SMM even though the previous NMI
> > handler has still not completed."
>
> I believe [2] only applies if there is an IRET executing inside the SMM
> handler, which should not normally be the case. It might also have been
> addressed since that was written, but I don't know.
Bad behaving BIOS? But I'm sure there's no such thing ;-)
-- 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