Re: [RFC] x86_64: A real proposal for iret-less return to kernel

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 03:13:16PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Why is this necessary?
>>
>> If the MCE hit kernel code, then we're going to die anyway.  If the
>> MCE hit user code, then we should be in a completely sensible context
>> and we can just send the signal.
>
> Are we guaranteed that the first thing the process will execute when
> scheduled back in are the signal handlers?

It's not even scheduled out, right?  This should be just like a signal
from a failed page fault, I think.

>
> And besides, maybe we don't even want to allow to do the switch_to() but
> kill it while it is sleeping.

What switch_to?

--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/