Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754144AbbB0Efh (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2015 23:35:37 -0500 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.64]:48927 "EHLO szxga01-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753896AbbB0Efg (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2015 23:35:36 -0500 Message-ID: <54EFF3E7.2070007@huawei.com> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:34:47 +0800 From: Wang Nan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andy Lutomirski CC: Masami Hiramatsu , Steven Rostedt , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , X86 ML , Oleg Nesterov , Dave Hansen , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Li Zefan Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, traps: install gates using IST after cpu_init(). References: <1424931315-44482-1-git-send-email-wangnan0@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.111.69.129] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1469 Lines: 43 On 2015/2/26 23:14, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Wang Nan wrote: >> X86_TRAP_NMI, X86_TRAP_DF and X86_TRAP_MC use their own stack. Those >> stacks are invalid until cpu_init() installs TSS. >> >> This patch moves setting of the 3 gates after cpu_init(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Wang Nan >> --- >> >> If I understand correctly, logically speaking the original code is >> incorrect. However, there is no real bug caused by it for serval years. >> I'm not sure whether this fix is practical or not. Fix them only for >> logical correctness. > > Acked-by: Andy Lutomirski > > That being said, I'm pretty sure you're not fixing a bug here. Agree. > Delivery of an exception with no handler is every bit as fatal as > delivery of an exception with a non-working IST handler. > Just curious: in original code, what will happen if an NMI or MC raises after 'set_intr_gate_ist(X86_TRAP_NMI, &nmi, NMI_STACK);' and before cpu_init()? In my opinion, at that time the interrupt handler is set but IST is not ready. In addition, why it's never happened for real? Does it means NMI is possible to be disabled? Thank you! > --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/