Re: [PATCH UPDATE] x86: ignore spurious faults

[Jan Beulich]

>>> Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 25.01.08 09:38 >>>
>On Friday 25 January 2008 19:15, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Actually, another thought: permitting (and handling) spurious faults for
>> kernel mappings conflicts with NMI handling, i.e. great care would be
>> needed to ensure the NMI path cannot touch any such mapping. So
>> even the present Xen/Linux Dom0 implementation may have some
>> (perhaps unlikely) problems here, and it would get worse if we added
>> e.g. a virtual watchdog NMI (something I am considering, which would
>> then extend the problem to DomU-s).
>
>Can you explain how they conflict?

In the same way as vmalloc faults do (which is why vmalloc_sync_all()
got introduced): a page fault nested inside an NMI will, by virtue of
executing IRET, prematurely tell the processor that NMI handling is
done (and specifically unmask further NMIs).

Jan

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/