MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinL3S3iMSoP0fb6bxn9IY62OmytBtbqCKy9CZk2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinLB3gQNKFk9QRfBS8YEfxL3qxZDFw7vWHDOnmL@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100714203940.GC22096@Krystal>
	<AANLkTinM0eFnreNB5l_6f20oSGBchqAtYPb57tM01kUB@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100714222115.GA30122@Krystal>
	<AANLkTikLG4xVYfvuMtbuzsqcnzo1ut4dFAm6piqy2Lh7@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTin21xBD-BFY4ZX2BPRFnT5-LkgGugvWsvTEP4Mr@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTil4LYSjS88P2CopOVi3Ty9pxwFPsaw0328KlPSu@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100715183153.GA9276@Krystal>
	<AANLkTilfXUtQznSzOmO9ecoaviIt62Hv6jdUOMSRLdrF@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimAn0uMpeYKctO0qxM6nwbfev3RHARLZIbf991k@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100715220117.GA1499@Krystal>
	<AANLkTinL3S3iMSoP0fb6bxn9IY62OmytBtbqCKy9CZk2@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:26:51 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinOTwnSNgwX7PnalhzwWMjwie0Xk_Lnrn_0bLzz@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] x86_64 page fault NMI-safe
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@rostedt.homelinux.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>, Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@infradead.org>,
        Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@gmail.com>,
        KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>,
        "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>, Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1188
Lines: 28

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Then you could in fact possibly test the stack pointer for whether it
> is in the NMI stack area, and use the value of %rsp itself as the
> flag. So you could avoid the flag entirely. Because testing %rsp is
> valid - testing %rip is not.
>
> That would also avoid the race, because %rsp (as a flag) now gets
> cleared atomically by the "iret". So that might actually solve things.

Hmm. So on x86-32, it's easy: if the NMI is nested, you can literally
look at the current %rsp value, and see if it's within the NMI stack
region.

But on x86-64, due to IST, you need to look at the saved-rsp value on
the stack, since the %rsp always gets reset to the NMI stack region
regardless of where it was before.

Why do we force IST use for NMI, btw? Maybe we shouldn't, and just use
the normal kernel stack mechanisms?

                                 Linus
--
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/