[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1904301312080.9803@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 13:17:40 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
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>,
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, 29 Apr 2019, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > It's 486 based, but either way I suspect the answer is "yes". IIRC,
> > > Knights Corner, a.k.a. Larrabee, also had funkiness around SMM and that
> > > was based on P54C, though I'm struggling to recall exactly what the
> > > Larrabee weirdness was.
> >
> > Aha! Found an ancient comment that explicitly states P5 does not block
> > NMI/SMI in the STI shadow, while P6 does block NMI/SMI.
>
> Ok, so the STI shadow really wouldn't be reliable on those machines. Scary.
>
> Of course, the good news is that hopefully nobody has them any more, and
> if they do, they presumably don't use fancy NMI profiling etc, so any
> actual NMI's are probably relegated purely to largely rare and
> effectively fatal errors anyway (ie memory parity errors).
FWIW, if that thing has local apic (I have no idea, I've never seen Quark
myself), then NMIs are used to trigger all-cpu backtrace as well. Which
still can be done in situations where the kernel is then expected to
continue running undisrupted (softlockup, sysrq, hung task detector, ...).
Nothing to really worry about in the particular case of this HW perhaps,
sure.
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists