Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1192282

Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/entry/64: Refactor IRQ stacks and make then NMI-safe

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

Show all headers | View raw


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 | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


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