[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrV4Z4hAs-pbvVjTgkXhQjJ48crD8vQBj0st9OnHLnmFgA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 19:45:52 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bpetkov@...e.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/16] x86/asm/64: Use a percpu trampoline stack for IDT entries
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
> On 11/20/2017 09:07 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> --- a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
>> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
>> @@ -560,6 +560,14 @@ END(irq_entries_start)
>> .macro interrupt func
>> cld
>> ALLOC_PT_GPREGS_ON_STACK
>> +
>> + testb $3, CS(%rsp)
>> + jz 1f
>> + SWAPGS
>> + call switch_to_thread_stack
>> + SWAPGS
>> +1:
>
> This looks really weird to me. SWAPGS, switch stack, and SWAPGS again?
>
> Is this so that we can use some per-cpu data in switch_to_thread_stack,
> and then put GS back so that the normal, non-trampoline entry code can
> do its normal SWAPGS voodoo?
>
>
Yes. I was trying to avoid totally restructuring error_entry here.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists