[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1405212357150.12047@pobox.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 23:59:21 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86_64: A real proposal for iret-less return to kernel
On Wed, 21 May 2014, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > Why is it a problem if user_mode_vm(regs)? Conversely, why is sending
> > a signal a remotely reasonable thing to do if !user_mode_vm(regs)?
>
> Let me quote Jiri:
>
> (1) task sends signal to itself
> (2) it acquires sighand->siglock so that it's able to queue the signal
> (3) MCE triggers
> (4) it tries to send a signal to the same task
> (5) it tries to acquire sighand->siglock and loops forever
Ah, alright, but due to what mce_severity() does, this can't happen,
because if the current CPU is in the kernel (which is obviously implied by
holding a spinlock), it never proceeds sending the signal, becase
no_way_out gets set and mce_panic() invoked.
--
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