[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BN6PR1101MB2161646D0E7FF2ABCAFD4177A8E19@BN6PR1101MB2161.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 03:06:39 +0000
From: "Li, Xin3" <xin3.li@...el.com>
To: "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"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?
>
> No, IRET has already been done by the kernel-provided handler, e.g.
> asm_exc_nmi_kvm_vmx()
> by way of error_return(). That's why the CALL above (that got snipped) is
> preceded
> by the creation of a synthetic NMI/IRQ stack frame: the target returns from
> the CALL
> via IRET, not RET.
You're right, this assembly makes another call into the asm entry point, which
returns here with IRET.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists