[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y6GELyEJeKY3dEqJ@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2022 10:45:19 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Xin Li <xin3.li@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com,
andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, seanjc@...gle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
ravi.v.shankar@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 22/32] x86/fred: FRED initialization code
On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 10:36:48PM -0800, Xin Li wrote:
> + wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_FRED_STKLVLS,
> + FRED_STKLVL(X86_TRAP_DB, 1) |
> + FRED_STKLVL(X86_TRAP_NMI, 2) |
> + FRED_STKLVL(X86_TRAP_MC, 2) |
> + FRED_STKLVL(X86_TRAP_DF, 3));
> +
> + /* The FRED equivalents to IST stacks... */
> + wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_FRED_RSP1, __this_cpu_ist_top_va(DB));
> + wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_FRED_RSP2, __this_cpu_ist_top_va(NMI));
> + wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_FRED_RSP3, __this_cpu_ist_top_va(DF));
Not quite.. IIRC fred only switches to another stack when the level of
the exception is higher. Specifically, if we trigger #DB while inside
#NMI we will not switch to the #DB stack (since 1 < 2).
Now, as mentioned elsewhere, it all nests a lot saner, but stack
exhaustion is still a thing, given the above, what happens when a #DB
hits an #NMI which tickles a #VE or something?
I don't think we've increased the exception stack size, but perhaps we
should for FRED?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists