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, 19 Feb 2020 15:43:18 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, x86-ml <x86@kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] #MC mess
Message-ID: <20200219144318.GD30966@zn.tnic>
References: <20200218173150.GK14449@zn.tnic>
 <CALCETrXbitwGKcEbCF84y0aEGz+B4LL_bj-_njgyXBJA74abOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200219081541.GG14914@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200219092115.3b3cccd9@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200219092115.3b3cccd9@gandalf.local.home>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 09:21:15AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> What would be nice is to have a NMI_IRET, that is defined as something
> that wont break legacy CPUs. Where it could be just a nop iret, or maybe
> if possible a "lock iret"? That is, not have a IRET_NON_NMI, as that
> would be all over the place, but just the iret for NMI itself. As
> that's in one place.

You mean, we could keep the nested NMI thing but it won't practically
get executed on NMI_IRET CPUs because there won't be any NMI nesting
anymore?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette