Re: [RFC] x86_64: A real proposal for iret-less return to kernel

[Jiri Kosina]

On Wed, 21 May 2014, Borislav Petkov wrote:

> > Why is it a problem if user_mode_vm(regs)?  Conversely, why is sending
> > a signal a remotely reasonable thing to do if !user_mode_vm(regs)?
> 
> Let me quote Jiri:
> 
> (1) task sends signal to itself
> (2) it acquires sighand->siglock so that it's able to queue the signal
> (3) MCE triggers
> (4) it tries to send a signal to the same task
> (5) it tries to acquire sighand->siglock and loops forever

Ah, alright, but due to what mce_severity() does, this can't happen, 
because if the current CPU is in the kernel (which is obviously implied by 
holding a spinlock), it never proceeds sending the signal, becase 
no_way_out gets set and mce_panic() invoked.

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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/