[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWkAnSe6kzha5+MmnZn+YT+rBrmu0vz+9Pr94uUjh9dDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 08:21:08 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86_64: A real proposal for iret-less return to kernel
On May 21, 2014 2:46 AM, "Borislav Petkov" <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 07:39:31PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > So the issue here is that we can have an NMI followed immediately by
> > an MCE.
>
> That part might need clarification for me: #MC is higher prio interrupt
> than NMI so a machine check exception can interrupt the NMI handler at
> any point.
Except that NMI can interrupt #MC at any point as well, I think.
>
> But you're talking only about the small window when nmi_mce_nest_count
> hasn't been incremented yet, right? I.e., this:
>
> "The result is that the only interrupt that can happen with
> `nmi_mce_nest_count == 0` in NMI context is an MCE at the beginning or
> end of the NMI handler."
>
> Correct?
Exactly.
>
> --
> 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