Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:51:51 -0700 | From | Jeremy Fitzhardinge <> | Subject | Re: [patches] new text patching for review |
| |
Andi Kleen wrote: > Normally there are not that many NMIs or MCEs at boot, but it would > be still good to avoid the very rare crash by auditing the code first > [better than try to debug it on some production system later] >
Auditing it for what? If we want to make patching safe against NMI/MCE, I guess we need to make sure those handlers don't use any pvops, but that seems unreasonable if they want to poke at MSRs and so on.
> In theory yes, in practice there can be errata of course. There tend > to be a couple with self modifying code, especially cross modifying > (from another CPU) -- but you don't do that. >
No, but the pv-ops patching code should have no requirement for atomicity at all; we shouldn't be trying to patch a live instruction stream.
J - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |