lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Dec]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [RFC PATCH 22/32] x86/fred: FRED initialization code
Date
> > >> +	wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_FRED_STKLVLS,
> > >> + FRED_STKLVL(X86_TRAP_DB, 1) |
> > >> + FRED_STKLVL(X86_TRAP_NMI, 2) |
> > >> + FRED_STKLVL(X86_TRAP_MC, 2) |
> > >> + FRED_STKLVL(X86_TRAP_DF, 3));
> > >> +
> > >> + /* The FRED equivalents to IST stacks... */
> > >> + wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_FRED_RSP1, __this_cpu_ist_top_va(DB));
> > >> + wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_FRED_RSP2, __this_cpu_ist_top_va(NMI));
> > >> + wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_FRED_RSP3, __this_cpu_ist_top_va(DF));
> > > Not quite.. IIRC fred only switches to another stack when the level
> > > of the exception is higher. Specifically, if we trigger #DB while
> > > inside #NMI we will not switch to the #DB stack (since 1 < 2).

Yes, current stack level can only grow higher.

> >
> > There needs to be a new stack for #DF, and just possibly one for #MC.
> > NMI and #DB do not need separate stacks under FRED.
>
> True, there is very little need to use additional stacks with FRED.

Pretty much.

#DB/NMI from a ring 3 context uses CSL 0, and their CSLs increase only
when happening from a ring 0 context.

>
> > > Now, as mentioned elsewhere, it all nests a lot saner, but stack
> > > exhaustion is still a thing, given the above, what happens when a
> > > #DB hits an #NMI which tickles a #VE or something?
> > >
> > > I don't think we've increased the exception stack size, but perhaps
> > > we should for FRED?
> >
> > Not sure if it matters too much - it doesn't seem usefully different
> > to IDT delivery.  #DB shouldn't get too deep, and NMI gets properly
> > inhibited now.
>
> Both #DB and #NMI can end up in perf, and all that goes quite deep :/

Can you please elaborate it a bit?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-26 23:16    [W:0.100 / U:0.196 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site