Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/entry/64: Refactor IRQ stacks and make then NMI-safe

[Borislav Petkov]

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:02:51AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> So really the only difference between this simple approach (which is
> more or less what we do now) and my fancy approach is that a kernel
> instruction breakpoint will cause do_debug to run on the initial stack
> instead of the IRQ stack.

Sounds ok to me. What would be the worst thing if we limited the #DB
stack? Some breakpoints will get ignored? In an endless stream of
breakpoints hammering? Doesn't sound like a valid use case to me, does
it?

> I'm still tempted to say we should use my overly paranoid atomic
> approach for now and optimize later,...

But why change it if the simple approach of incrementing irq_count first
is still fine? I think we want to KISS here exactly because apparently
complexity in that area is a serious PITA...

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
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/