Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 3 Apr 2019 21:42:41 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
cc:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 15/14] x86/dumpstack/64: Speedup in_exception_stack()
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1904031823100.1967@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1904032038500.1833@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <20190331214020.836098943@linutronix.de> <20190331215136.039902969@linutronix.de> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1904021214340.1676@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20190402154329.scp7i7uqevubgwrz@treble> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1904021746080.1676@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <7789E14E-C623-4DB7-B076-76B931957C9C@amacapital.net> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1904022027170.1812@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1904022127210.1812@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <6205D576-694A-4C7D-B1B7-A9FF2E1F9E77@amacapital.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1904031823100.1967@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="8323329-1964072614-1554316784=:1833"
Content-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1904032040110.1833@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--8323329-1964072614-1554316784=:1833
Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=ISO-8859-7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1904032040111.1833@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > On Apr 2, 2019, at 1:29 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > >>> How about a much better fix: make the DB stack be the same size as all
> > >>> the others and just have 4 of them (DB0, DB1, DB2, and DB3.  After all,
> > >>> overflowing from one debug stack into another is just as much of a bug as
> > >>> overflowing into a different IST stack.
> > >> 
> > >> That makes sense.
> > > 
> > > Except that we just have two not four.
> > > 
> > > It needs some tweaking of the ist_shift stuff in entry_64.S but that's not
> > > rocket science. Famous last words....
> > > 
> > 
> > The ist_shift mess should probably be in C, but that?s a big can of
> > worms. That being said, why do we have it at all?  Once upon a time, we?d
> > do ICEBP from user mode (or a legit breakpoint), then send a signal and
> > hit a data breakpoint, and we?d recurse.  But we don?t run user debug
> > handlers on the IST stack at all anymore.
> >
> > Maybe we can convince ourselves it?s safe?
> 
> Maybe. Need to think about it for a while.

What about kprobes. It has nasty reentrancy stuff as well...

Thanks,

	tglx
--8323329-1964072614-1554316784=:1833--