[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BN6PR1101MB2161B2CB247273CDD85F4C19A8E09@BN6PR1101MB2161.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2022 21:23:05 +0000
From: "Li, Xin3" <xin3.li@...el.com>
To: "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
CC: "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Lutomirski, Andy" <luto@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 6/7] KVM: VMX: Provide separate subroutines for invoking
NMI vs. IRQ handlers
> +
> + /*
> + * "Restore" RSP from RBP, even though IRET has already unwound
> RSP to
> + * the correct value. objtool doesn't know the callee will IRET and,
> + * without the explicit restore, thinks the stack is getting walloped.
> + * Using an unwind hint is problematic due to x86-64's dynamic
> alignment.
> + */
> + mov %_ASM_BP, %_ASM_SP
> + pop %_ASM_BP
> + RET
For NMI, after this RET instruction, we continue to block NMIs. IRET instead?
> +.endm
> +
> .section .noinstr.text, "ax"
Powered by blists - more mailing lists