[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230620090157.GVZJFrBYuN/Wr/9N9L@fat_crate.local>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2023 11:01:57 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Tony Battersby <tonyb@...ernetics.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...ux.intel.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Arjan van de Veen <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch v3 4/7] x86/smp: Use dedicated cache-line for
mwait_play_dead()
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 10:33:55PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Monitoring idletask::thread_info::flags in mwait_play_dead() has been an
> obvious choice as all what is needed is a cache line which is not written
> by other CPUs.
>
> But there is a use case where a "dead" CPU needs to be brought out of that
> mwait(): kexec().
s/mwait()/wait state/
I guess.
> The CPU needs to be brought out of mwait before kexec() as kexec() can
Ditto.
> overwrite text, pagetables, stacks and the monitored cacheline of the
> original kernel.
Yikes.
> The latter causes mwait to resume execution which
> obviously causes havoc on the kexec kernel which results usually in triple
> faults.
This sounds like a stable fix, no?
Reviewed-by: Borislav Petkov (AMD) <bp@...en8.de>
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists