On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 11:29:29AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 06:39 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Regarding the stack overflow audit of the nmi path, we have the problem
> > that both nmi_enter and nmi_exit in do_nmi (see code below) make heavy
> > use of "current" indirectly (specially through the kernel preemption
> > code).
>
> Ok. I wonder if it would be saner to simply replace the nmi trap
> handler on the crash dump path?
>
Sounds interesting.
> >> I believe we have a separate interrupt stack that
> >> should help but..
> > Yes, when using 4K stacks we have a separate interrupt stack that should
> > help, but I am afraid that crash dumping is about being paranoid.
>
> Oh I agree. If we had a private 4K stack for the nmi handler we
> would not need to worry about overflow in that case.
Having private 4K stack makes sense as crash_nmi_callback() itself
requires quite some space on stack. If one has enabled CONFIG_4KSTACKS,
then we use separate interrupt stack and we are probably safe from stack
overflows but otherwise we need it.
> (baring
> nmi happening during nmis) Hmm. Is there anything to keep
> us doing something bad in that case?
>
> I guess as long as we don't clear the high bit of port 0x70 we
> should be reasonably safe from the nmi firing multiple times.
Are you referring to port 0x23 for IMCR register.
Thanks
Vivek
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
