Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1450785
| From | Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 10/19] x86/dumpstack: add get_stack_info() interface |
| Date | 2016-07-26 21:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rZfKa-5Fs-19@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (4 earlier) <rXSPE-4m9-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <rY5MR-3Kb-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <rYYgi-3je-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <rZdIl-4pd-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <rZeEp-52r-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 01:49:06PM -0400, Brian Gerst wrote: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 05:09:44PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >> On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 7:04 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > Am I correct in understanding that there can only be one level of NMI > >> > nesting at any given time? If so, could we make it easier on the > >> > unwinder by putting the nested NMI on a separate software stack, so the > >> > "next stack" pointers are always in the same place? Or am I just being > >> > naive? > >> > >> I think you're being naive :) > > > > Another dumb question: since NMIs are reentrant, have you considered > > removing the NMI IST entry, and instead just have NMIs keep using the > > current stack? > > > > The first NMI could then be switched to an NMI software stack, like IRQs > > (assuming there's a way to do that atomically!). And then determining > > the context of subsequent NMIs would be straightforward, and we'd no > > longer need to jump through all those horrible hoops in the entry code > > to deal with NMI nesting. > > > > Now you can tell me what else I'm missing... > > There are several places (most notably SYSCALL entry) where the kernel > stack pointer is unsafe/user controlled for a brief time. Since an > NMI can interrupt anywhere in the kernel, you have to use an IST to > protect against that case. Ah, that makes sense. Thanks. -- Josh
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH 10/19] x86/dumpstack: add get_stack_info() interface Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-07-26 02:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 10/19] x86/dumpstack: add get_stack_info() interface Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2016-07-26 18:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 10/19] x86/dumpstack: add get_stack_info() interface Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2016-07-26 20:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 10/19] x86/dumpstack: add get_stack_info() interface Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2016-07-26 21:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 10/19] x86/dumpstack: add get_stack_info() interface Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-07-26 23:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 10/19] x86/dumpstack: add get_stack_info() interface Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2016-07-27 00:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 10/19] x86/dumpstack: add get_stack_info() interface Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-07-27 00:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH 10/19] x86/dumpstack: add get_stack_info() interface Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2016-07-27 00:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH 10/19] x86/dumpstack: add get_stack_info() interface Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2016-07-26 18:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH 10/19] x86/dumpstack: add get_stack_info() interface Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 19:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH 10/19] x86/dumpstack: add get_stack_info() interface Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> - 2016-07-26 21:00 +0200
csiph-web