[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150821062328.GA32366@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 08:23:28 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/traps: Weaken context tracking entry assertions
* Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> We were asserting that we were all the way in CONTEXT_KERNEL when exception
> handlers were called. While having this be true is, I think, a nice goal (or
> maybe a variant in which we assert that we're in CONTEXT_KERNEL or some new IRQ
> context), we're not quite there.
>
> In particular, if an IRQ interrupts the SYSCALL prologue and the IRQ handler in
> turn causes an exception, the exception entry will be called in RCU IRQ mode but
> with CONTEXT_USER.
Hm, so what harm would there be in making IRQ handlers enter CONTEXT_KERNEL?
Would nohz-full break?
I'd rather have a bit more tracking overhead here than lose such useful sanity
checks.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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