[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150724195509.GM2859@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 21:55:09 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, 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>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Dealing with the NMI mess
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:29:29AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 05:26:37PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The point is, if we trigger a #DB on an instruction breakpoint
> >> > while !IF, then we simply disable that breakpoint and do the RET.
> >>
> >> Yes but the breakpoint remains disabled then. Or I'm missing
> >> something.
> >
> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=143773601130974
> >
> > We re-enable before going back to userspace.
>
> Actually, Andy had a good argument that we don't even need this.
>
> We just don't ever need to disable data breakpoints. Even if we end up doing
>
> cli();
> copy_from_user_inatomic();
>
> that actually works fine. If there are data breakpoints, we will have
I worry that we'll end up running the do_debug() handlers from effective
NMI context.
The NMI might have preempted locks which these handlers require etc..
--
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