Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-100843-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
From: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
To: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,  linux-mm@kvack.org,
  akpm@linux-foundation.org,  x86@kernel.org,  bp@alien8.de,
  brauner@kernel.org,  bristot@redhat.com,  bsegall@google.com,
  dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,  dianders@chromium.org,
  dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,  eric.devolder@oracle.com,  hca@linux.ibm.com,
  hch@infradead.org,  hpa@zytor.com,  jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com,
  jgg@ziepe.ca,  jpoimboe@kernel.org,  jroedel@suse.de,
  juri.lelli@redhat.com,  kent.overstreet@linux.dev,  kinseyho@google.com,
  kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com,  lstoakes@gmail.com,  luto@kernel.org,
  mgorman@suse.de,  mic@digikod.net,  michael.christie@oracle.com,
  mingo@redhat.com,  mjguzik@gmail.com,  mst@redhat.com,
  npiggin@gmail.com,  peterz@infradead.org,  pmladek@suse.com,
  rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com,  rostedt@goodmis.org,  surenb@google.com,
  tglx@linutronix.de,  urezki@gmail.com,  vincent.guittot@linaro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 11/14] x86: add support for Dynamic Kernel Stacks
In-Reply-To: <20240311164638.2015063-12-pasha.tatashin@soleen.com> (Pasha
	Tatashin's message of "Mon, 11 Mar 2024 16:46:35 +0000")
References: <20240311164638.2015063-1-pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
	<20240311164638.2015063-12-pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:58:00 -0700
Message-ID: <87ttlbm7tj.fsf@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com> writes:

> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> index d6375b3c633b..651c558b10eb 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> @@ -1198,6 +1198,9 @@ do_kern_addr_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long hw_error_code,
>  	if (is_f00f_bug(regs, hw_error_code, address))
>  		return;
>  
> +	if (dynamic_stack_fault(current, address))
> +		return;

Probably I'm missing something here, but since you are on the same stack as
you are trying to fix up, how can this possibly work?

Fault on missing stack
#PF
<will push more stuff onto the missing stack causing a double fault>

You would need a separate stack just to handle this. But the normal
page fault handler couldn't use it because it needs to be able to block.

Ah I get it -- you handle it in the double fault handler?  So every
stack grow will be a #DF too? That's scary. 


-Andi