Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1192282
| From | Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/entry/64: Refactor IRQ stacks and make then NMI-safe |
| Date | 2015-07-25 06:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pPZfX-2a9-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <pPxjI-3z4-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <pPElb-5C6-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <pPIoP-2Zr-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <pPPzX-4Yj-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <pPZ6i-1WD-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:02:51AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> So really the only difference between this simple approach (which is >> more or less what we do now) and my fancy approach is that a kernel >> instruction breakpoint will cause do_debug to run on the initial stack >> instead of the IRQ stack. > > Sounds ok to me. What would be the worst thing if we limited the #DB > stack? Some breakpoints will get ignored? In an endless stream of > breakpoints hammering? Doesn't sound like a valid use case to me, does > it? > >> I'm still tempted to say we should use my overly paranoid atomic >> approach for now and optimize later,... > > But why change it if the simple approach of incrementing irq_count first > is still fine? I think we want to KISS here exactly because apparently > complexity in that area is a serious PITA... Yeah, I'm going to submit v2 with the simple approach. I admit I'm rather fond of xadd as a way to switch rsp and set a flag at the same time, though :) --Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH 0/3] x86_64: Make int3 non-magical Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> - 2015-07-24 00:40 +0200
[PATCH 3/3] x86/entry/64: Move #BP from IST to the IRQ stack Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> - 2015-07-24 00:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/entry/64: Move #BP from IST to the IRQ stack Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> - 2015-07-24 13:10 +0200
[PATCH 1/3] x86/entry/64: Refactor IRQ stacks and make then NMI-safe Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> - 2015-07-24 00:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/entry/64: Refactor IRQ stacks and make then NMI-safe Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> - 2015-07-24 12:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/entry/64: Refactor IRQ stacks and make then NMI-safe Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> - 2015-07-25 06:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/entry/64: Refactor IRQ stacks and make then NMI-safe Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2015-07-25 06:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/entry/64: Refactor IRQ stacks and make then NMI-safe Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> - 2015-07-25 06:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/entry/64: Refactor IRQ stacks and make then NMI-safe Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2015-07-25 07:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/entry/64: Refactor IRQ stacks and make then NMI-safe Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-07-25 20:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/entry/64: Refactor IRQ stacks and make then NMI-safe Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2015-07-25 20:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/entry/64: Refactor IRQ stacks and make then NMI-safe Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-07-25 20:20 +0200
[PATCH 2/3] x86/entry/64: Teach idtentry to use the IRQ stack Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> - 2015-07-24 00:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86_64: Make int3 non-magical Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2015-07-24 00:40 +0200
csiph-web