[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E67D7461-68B3-44E5-ADB5-52E5A4D3897D@amacapital.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:09:46 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai+lkml@...il.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] KVM: VMX: Invoke NMI handler via indirect call instead of INTn
> On Apr 26, 2021, at 7:51 AM, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>> The original code "int $2" can provide the needed CPU-hidden-NMI-masked
>>> when entering #NMI, but I doubt it about this change.
>>
>> How would "int $2" block NMIs? The hidden effect of this change (and I
>> should have reviewed better the effect on the NMI entry code) is that the
>> call will not use the IST anymore.
>
> My understanding is that int $2 does not block NMIs.
>
> So reentries might have been possible.
>
The C NMI code has its own reentrancy protection and has for years. It should work fine for this use case.
> -Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists