[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150723212042.GN25159@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:20:42 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Dealing with the NMI mess
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 01:38:33PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> And the "take them and disable them" is really simple. No "am I in an
> NMI contect" thing (because that leads to the whole question about
> "what is NMI context"). That's not the real rule anyway.
>
> No, make it very simple and straightforward. Make the test be "uhhuh,
> I got a #DB in kernel mode, and interrupts were disabled - I know I'm
> going to return with "ret", so I'm just going to have to disable this
> breakpoint".
>
> Nothing clever. Nothing subtle. Nothing that needs "this range of
> instructions is magical". No. Just a very simple rule: if the context
> we return to is kernel mode and interrupts are disabled, we're using
> 'ret', so we cannot suppress debug faults.
>
> Did I miss something? There were a lot of emails flying around, but I
> *thought* I saw them all..
So the NMI could trigger userspace debug register faults, and simply
disabling them would make the whole debug register thing entirely
unreliable.
--
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