[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrXzVU0Q7u1q=QFPaDr=aojjF5cjbOi9CxxXnp5GqTqsWA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:24:23 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Nicolai Stange <nstange@...e.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86/ftrace: make ftrace_int3_handler() not to skip
fops invocation
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 12:13 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 12:02 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> If nmi were to break it, it would be a cpu bug.
>
>
> Side note: we *already* depend on sti shadow working in other parts of the kernel, namely sti->iret.
>
Where? STI; IRET would be nuts.
Before:
commit 4214a16b02971c60960afd675d03544e109e0d75
Author: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Date: Thu Apr 2 17:12:12 2015 -0700
x86/asm/entry/64/compat: Use SYSRETL to return from compat mode SYSENTER
we did sti; sysxit, but, when we discussed this, I don't recall anyone
speaking up in favor of the safely of the old code.
Not to mention that the crash we'll get if we get an NMI and a
rescheduling interrupt in this path will be very, very hard to debug.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists