[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200623160215.GP4817@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 18:02:15 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Tom Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
Mike Stunes <mstunes@...are.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Juergen Gross <JGross@...e.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>,
Linux Virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: Should SEV-ES #VC use IST? (Re: [PATCH] Allow RDTSC and RDTSCP
from userspace)
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 05:38:55PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 05:23:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Reliability of that depends on the unwinder, I wouldn't want the guess
> > uwinder to OOPS me by accident.
>
> It doesn't use the full unwinder, it just assumes that there is a
> pt_regs struct at the top of every kernel stack and walks through them
> until SP points to a user-space stack.
>
> As long as the assumption that there is a pt_regs struct on top of every
> stack holds, this should be safe. The assumption might be wrong when an
> exception happens during SYSCALL/SYSENTER entry, when the return frame
> is not written by hardware.
The IRQ and SoftIRQ stacks don't have that I think. Only the task and
exception stacks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists