[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWR+PqM6SxzqoRwghPgihjQCJ74VCN5AsAq3Kja64uCTg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 14:59:38 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
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, May 21, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 02:52:55PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski 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
...and !user_mode_vm(regs), and hence we're IN_KERNEL, and we should
presumably just panic instead of trying to send a signal.
I missed the IN_KERNEL thing because I didn't realize that ->cs was
copied to struct mce.
--Andy
--
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