[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190703220057.GJ3402@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 00:00:57 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
He Zhe <zhe.he@...driver.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, devel@...ukata.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/mm, tracing: Fix CR2 corruption
On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 01:27:09PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 3:28 AM root <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > @@ -1338,18 +1347,9 @@ ENTRY(error_entry)
> > movq %rax, %rsp /* switch stack */
> > ENCODE_FRAME_POINTER
> > pushq %r12
> > -
> > - /*
> > - * We need to tell lockdep that IRQs are off. We can't do this until
> > - * we fix gsbase, and we should do it before enter_from_user_mode
> > - * (which can take locks).
> > - */
> > - TRACE_IRQS_OFF
>
> This hunk looks wrong. Am I missing some other place that handles the
> case where we enter from kernel mode and IRQs were on?
> > - CALL_enter_from_user_mode
> > ret
> >
> > .Lerror_entry_done:
> > - TRACE_IRQS_OFF
> > ret
> >
> > /*
Did you perchance mean to complain about the .Lerror_entry_done one?
Because I'm not seeing how the one before CALL_enter_from_user_mode can
ever be from-kernel.
But yes, that .Lerror_entry_done one looks fishy.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists