Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] sched, x86: Check that we're on the right stack in schedule and __might_sleep

From: Andy Lutomirski
Date: Wed Nov 19 2014 - 18:49:56 EST

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Does that include nmi? I'm a bit afraid of touching that code.
> NMI is kind of special, since it's really not supposed to touch
> 'current' or anything like that, and that's how we do preempt-count
> (and that's where irq-count is) right now.
> I would prefer to have preempt_count be a percpu variable rather than
> a per-thread one, but there are historical reasons for that horror. Oh
> well.
>> It's certainly easy enough to bump irq_count in the paranoid entries.
> It definitely shouldn't be done from the assembly code. Usually it's
> "irq_enter/exit()" that does it, but for NMI you'd presumably just do
> it explicitly from do_nmi() or similar. But NMI really is nastier than
> other cases, see above.

My only real objection is that it's going to be ugly and error prone.
It'll have to be something like:

if (!user_mode_vm(regs))


if (!user_mode_vm(regs))

because the whole point of this series is to make the IST entries not
be atomic when they come from userspace. We can wrap this in an
inline cond_ist_enter/cond_ist_exit or whatever, but still, blech.

Tony already sent the follow-up patch that will make do_machine_check
enable interrupts if it came from userspace.


> (That said, I thought we did it anyway, but now that I look I can't
> find it. So I was probably just smoking something)
> Linus

Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at