lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/5] xen/x86-64: clean up warnings aboutIST-using traps

* Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com> wrote:

> >>> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> 07.05.09 20:56 >>>
> >Ignore known IST-using traps. Aside from the debugger traps, they're
> >low-level faults which Xen will handle for us, so the kernel needn't
> >worry about them. Keep warning in case unknown trap starts using IST.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com>
> >---
> > arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++--
> > 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
> >index cb49f57..88f3aa4 100644
> >--- a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
> >+++ b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c
> >@@ -439,12 +439,30 @@ static int cvt_gate_to_trap(int vector, const gate_desc *val,
> >
> > addr = gate_offset(*val);
> > #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> >+ /*
> >+ * Look for known traps using IST, and substitute them
> >+ * appropriately. The debugger ones are the only ones we care
> >+ * about. Xen will handle faults like double_fault and
> >+ * machine_check, so we should never see them. Warn if
> >+ * there's an unexpected IST-using fault handler.
> >+ */
> > if (addr == (unsigned long)debug)
> > addr = (unsigned long)xen_debug;
> > else if (addr == (unsigned long)int3)
> > addr = (unsigned long)xen_int3;
> >- else
> >- WARN_ON(val->ist != 0);
> >+ else if (addr == (unsigned long)double_fault ||
> >+ addr == (unsigned long)stack_segment) {
>
> I don't think you want to exclude handling stack faults: Ordinary
> memory references using rsp or rbp as the base register will cause
> these instead of general protection faults when the resulting
> effective address is non- canonical.

Yes. Also, patches 1-2-3 really just do the same thing, one fixes
the other one. Would be nice to have a single patch for that whole
ugly topic of 64-bit Xen not handling ISTs properly.

If this was a CPU we'd say "sorry, dont run Linux on it then" ...

I've applied the reservation fix to x86/urgent, and the #5 patch to
x86/xen (it's more of a cleanup, not a fix for .30, right?).

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-05-08 11:01    [W:0.075 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site