[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWX5mH110KGQMErjne0GNWav-k8TrGqi6dArQo2sNdT3w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 13:53:34 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Dealing with the NMI mess
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 01:38:33PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > 2. Forbid IRET inside NMIs. Doable but maybe not that pretty.
>> >
>> > We haven't considered:
>> >
>> > 3. Forbid faults (other than MCE) inside NMI.
>>
>> I'd really prefer #2. #3 depends on us getting many things right, and
>> never introducing new cases in the future.
>>
>> #2, in contrast, seems to be fairly localized. Yes, RF is an issue,
>> but returning to user space with RF clear doesn't really seem to be
>> all that problematic.
>
> What's the worst case that can happen with RF cleared when returing
> to user space ? My understanding is that it's just that we risk to
> break again on an instruction that had a break point set and which
> already triggered the breakpoint, right ?
I assume Linus meant returning to kernel space with RF clear. Returns
to userspace have their own fancy logic here, and it's survived for a
couple of releases, including through an explicit test of RF handling
:)
--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