lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC] x86_64: A real proposal for iret-less return to kernel
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 03:13:16PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Why is this necessary?
>>
>> If the MCE hit kernel code, then we're going to die anyway. If the
>> MCE hit user code, then we should be in a completely sensible context
>> and we can just send the signal.
>
> Are we guaranteed that the first thing the process will execute when
> scheduled back in are the signal handlers?

It's not even scheduled out, right? This should be just like a signal
from a failed page fault, I think.

>
> And besides, maybe we don't even want to allow to do the switch_to() but
> kill it while it is sleeping.

What switch_to?

--Andy


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-05-22 01:01    [W:0.147 / U:0.716 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site