[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWY4OW0FF3vsS+ntALU_kmmcEB9wf0RMg-H5kSO7jQ-wQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 15:20:50 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, 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>
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86_64: A real proposal for iret-less return to kernel
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 03:13:16PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Why is this necessary?
>>
>> If the MCE hit kernel code, then we're going to die anyway. If the
>> MCE hit user code, then we should be in a completely sensible context
>> and we can just send the signal.
>
> Are we guaranteed that the first thing the process will execute when
> scheduled back in are the signal handlers?
It's not even scheduled out, right? This should be just like a signal
from a failed page fault, I think.
>
> And besides, maybe we don't even want to allow to do the switch_to() but
> kill it while it is sleeping.
What switch_to?
--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