[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b7880f0b-a592-cf2d-03b9-1ccfd83f8223@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2023 22:56:26 +1100
From: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@....com>
To: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Subject: Re: [Question PATCH kernel] x86/amd/sev/nmi+vc: Fix stack handling
(why is this happening?)
On 27/1/23 21:37, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 10:08:14AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> Welcome to the wonderful shit show that is x86 exceptions :/
>>
>> I thought sev_es_*() is supposed to fix this. Joerg, any clue?
>
> Hmm, no, not yet, the stack-trace doesn't make much sense to me. The
> sev_es_* function calls in the NMI path are for re-enabling NMI and
> adjusting the #VC IST stack to allow nested VCs.
>
> Alexey, can you try to get a more stable backtrace? For example by
> building the kernel with frame pointers?
Do you mean these guys (below)?
aik@...-Standard-PC-i440FX-PIIX-1996:~$ grep FRAME_POINTER
/boot/config-$(uname -r)
CONFIG_SCHED_OMIT_FRAME_POINTER=y
CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y
CONFIG_UNWINDER_FRAME_POINTER=y
Here is the complete output of that VM (200k so not in the email):
https://github.com/aik/linux/commit/d0d6bbb58fcd927ddd1f8e9d42ab121920c7eafc
Note that the original long backtrace appears more than once, I just did
not copy all of that in the first email.
--
Alexey
Powered by blists - more mailing lists