[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140605155307.GD16642@pd.tnic>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 17:53:08 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/efi] x86/efi: Check for unsafe dealing with FPU state
in irq ctxt
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 08:44:20AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Are there weird contexts from which EFI calls can happen? It looks
> like the current code isn't necessarily safe in things that aren't
> normal process context but aren't interrupts either (e.g. debug traps,
> #GP, etc).
The efi-pstore thing registers as a kmsg dumper which can be run in NMI
context and efi can be called there.
> I wonder if it would make sense at some point to maintain an explicit
> stack of kernel entries. There doesn't seem to be a reliable way to
> answer the question of "what context am I in" from C code right now.
So that you can ask int ctxt = what_context_Im_in() and then that
context can go and change right underneath you. :-)
--
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