[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4cd54266-84b4-d2b8-fed8-12e3007a3b77@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:00:08 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 6/6] x86/entry/pti: don't switch PGD on when
pti_disable is set
On 01/11/2018 09:02 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> But, the stack gets really fun because of NMIs.
>>
>> I'm sure Andy Lutomirski has some ideas too.
> I was thinking that maybe we should add a new field or two to pt_regs.
> They could store CR2 and maybe CR3 as well. I'd also like to expose
> the error code of exceptions in stack traces. We should get this
> integrated right into the unwinder.
The trampoline and (normal) interrupt stacks should be pretty doable.
It's the NMI mess that I'm worried about. I tried to change the stack
layout in there once and ran away screaming.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists