[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1405211450410.27739@twin.jikos.cz>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 14:51:45 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86_64: A real proposal for iret-less return to kernel
On Tue, 20 May 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> So the issue here is that we can have an NMI followed immediately by
> an MCE. The MCE code can call force_sig
This is interesting by itself. force_sig() takes siglock spinlock. This
really looks like a deadlock sitting there waiting to happen.
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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