Displaying 9 results from an estimated 9 matches for "_ret_ip_".
2009 Jun 02
10
[PATCH 0/7] [RESEND] Fix some deadlocks in quota code and implement lockdep for cluster locks
Hi,
I'm resending this patch series. It's rediffed against linux-next branch of
Joel's git tree. The first four patches are obvious fixes of deadlocks in quota
code and should go in as soon as possible. The other three patches implement
lockdep support for OCFS2 cluster locks. So you can have a look whether the
code make sence to you and possibly merge them. They should be NOP when
2020 Jun 23
2
Should SEV-ES #VC use IST? (Re: [PATCH] Allow RDTSC and RDTSCP from userspace)
...4c90c 100644
--- a/arch/x86/entry/common.c
+++ b/arch/x86/entry/common.c
@@ -742,6 +742,13 @@ noinstr void idtentry_exit_nmi(struct pt_regs *regs, bool restore)
__nmi_exit();
}
+noinstr void idtentry_validate_ist(struct pt_regs *regs)
+{
+ if ((regs->sp & ~(EXCEPTION_STKSZ-1)) ==
+ (_RET_IP_ & ~(EXCEPTION_STKSZ-1)))
+ die("IST stack recursion", regs, 0);
+}
+
#ifdef CONFIG_XEN_PV
#ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPTION
/*
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/idtentry.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/idtentry.h
index 4e399f120ff8..974c1a4eacbb 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/idtentry.h
+++ b...
2020 Jun 23
6
Should SEV-ES #VC use IST? (Re: [PATCH] Allow RDTSC and RDTSCP from userspace)
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 04:59:14PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 04:53:44PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > +noinstr void idtentry_validate_ist(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > +{
> > + if ((regs->sp & ~(EXCEPTION_STKSZ-1)) ==
> > + (_RET_IP_ & ~(EXCEPTION_STKSZ-1)))
> > + die("IST stack recursion", regs, 0);
> > +}
>
> Yes, this is a start, it doesn't cover the case where the NMI stack is
> in-between, so I think you need to walk down regs->sp too.
That shouldn't be possible with the cur...
2009 Jun 04
2
[PATCH 0/2] OCFS2 lockdep support
Hi,
here comes the next version of OCFS2 lockdep support. I've dropped patches
with fixes from the series since they were already merged.
As Joel suggested, I've simplified the main patch a bit so that we don't
have ifdefs around lock declarations and there are also a few other minor
improvements.
Honza
2020 Jun 23
0
Should SEV-ES #VC use IST? (Re: [PATCH] Allow RDTSC and RDTSCP from userspace)
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 04:53:44PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> +noinstr void idtentry_validate_ist(struct pt_regs *regs)
> +{
> + if ((regs->sp & ~(EXCEPTION_STKSZ-1)) ==
> + (_RET_IP_ & ~(EXCEPTION_STKSZ-1)))
> + die("IST stack recursion", regs, 0);
> +}
Yes, this is a start, it doesn't cover the case where the NMI stack is
in-between, so I think you need to walk down regs->sp too. The dumpstack
code already has some logic for this.
Joerg
2020 Jun 23
0
Should SEV-ES #VC use IST? (Re: [PATCH] Allow RDTSC and RDTSCP from userspace)
...e, Jun 23, 2020 at 04:59:14PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 04:53:44PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> +noinstr void idtentry_validate_ist(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>> +{
>>> + if ((regs->sp & ~(EXCEPTION_STKSZ-1)) ==
>>> + (_RET_IP_ & ~(EXCEPTION_STKSZ-1)))
>>> + die("IST stack recursion", regs, 0);
>>> +}
>> Yes, this is a start, it doesn't cover the case where the NMI stack is
>> in-between, so I think you need to walk down regs->sp too.
> That shouldn't be possible...
2020 Jun 23
0
Should SEV-ES #VC use IST? (Re: [PATCH] Allow RDTSC and RDTSCP from userspace)
..., 2020 at 04:59:14PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 04:53:44PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > +noinstr void idtentry_validate_ist(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > > +{
> > > + if ((regs->sp & ~(EXCEPTION_STKSZ-1)) ==
> > > + (_RET_IP_ & ~(EXCEPTION_STKSZ-1)))
> > > + die("IST stack recursion", regs, 0);
> > > +}
> >
> > Yes, this is a start, it doesn't cover the case where the NMI stack is
> > in-between, so I think you need to walk down regs->sp too.
>
> That sho...
2020 Jun 23
2
Should SEV-ES #VC use IST? (Re: [PATCH] Allow RDTSC and RDTSCP from userspace)
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 02:52:01PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 02:04:33PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > No, the recursion check is fine, because overwriting an already used IST
> > stack doesn't matter (as long as it can be detected) if we are going to
> > panic anyway. It doesn't matter because the kernel will not leave the
> >
2009 Feb 26
1
[PATCH 0/7] OCFS2 locking fixes and lockdep annotations
Hi,
the first four patches in this series fix locking problems in OCFS2 quota code (three of
them can lead to potential deadlocks). The fifth patch reorders ip_alloc_sem for directories
to be acquired before localalloc locks. Mark would you please merge these?
The last two patches implement lockdep annotations for OCFS2 cluster locks. We annotate all
the cluster locks except for special ones