[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140521142055.GH21205@pd.tnic>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 16:20:55 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"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>,
Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>,
Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.cz>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Subject: Re: 64bit x86: NMI nesting still buggy?
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 03:42:24PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> Alright, Andy's iret optimization efforts do immediately bring a
> followup question -- why is this not a problem with iret-based return
> from #MC possibly interrupting NMI?
Yeah, and frankly, I don't see this nesting fun at all protected against
a #MC interrupting it at any point actually. Because once the #MC
handler returns, it goes into paranoid_exit and that place doesn't
account for NMIs at all, AFAICS.
Which would mean:
* NMI goes off
* MCE happens, we switch to machine_check which is paranoidzeroentry
* #MC handler is done -> paranoid_exit -> IRET
-> boom! Or if not "boom", at least, the NMI gets forgotten.
Am I missing something?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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