[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1811302209370.21108@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 22:13:42 +0100 (CET)
From: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, julia@...com, jeyu@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] x86/static_call: Add inline static call implementation
for x86-64
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> According to the SDM, you can program the APIC ICR to request an SMI.
> It's not remotely clear to me what will happen if we do this.
I think one of the known reliable ways to trigger SMI is to write 0x0 to
the SMI command I/O port (0xb2).
> For all I know, the SMI handler will explode and the computer will catch
> fire.
Ha, therefore noone can't claim any more that SMIs are always harmful :)
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists