On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Borislav Petkov <b...@alien8.de> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:02:51AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> So really the only difference between this simple approach (which is >> more or less what we do now) and my fancy approach is that a kernel >> instruction breakpoint will cause do_debug to run on the initial stack >> instead of the IRQ stack. > > Sounds ok to me. What would be the worst thing if we limited the #DB > stack? Some breakpoints will get ignored? In an endless stream of > breakpoints hammering? Doesn't sound like a valid use case to me, does > it? > >> I'm still tempted to say we should use my overly paranoid atomic >> approach for now and optimize later,... > > But why change it if the simple approach of incrementing irq_count first > is still fine? I think we want to KISS here exactly because apparently > complexity in that area is a serious PITA...
Yeah, I'm going to submit v2 with the simple approach. I admit I'm rather fond of xadd as a way to switch rsp and set a flag at the same time, though :) --Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/