On 27.09.2010, at 11:27, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 09/27/2010 11:22 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> On 27.09.2010, at 11:17, Avi Kivity wrote: >> >> > On 09/27/2010 11:15 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Wow, this is incredibly ugly :). Can't we just mask NMIs when the >> >> interrupt shadow is active? >> > >> > I plan to do that, for all the code that's out there relying on on STI >> > interrupt shadow masking NMIs. >> > >> >> Yeah, that's me writing without thinking. So this means that the race >> >> can also happen on real hardware? >> >> >> > >> > Yes. At least on documented hardware. Some (most? all?) hardware does >> > mask NMIs after STI. >> >> If all hardware masks NMIs after STI, wouldn't it be better to update the >> spec and declare KVM buggy for injecting NMIs there? >> > > I don't have write permissions for the spec. If you can verify that all > existing and future hardware will mask NMI after STI and convince the spec > owners to update the specifications, I'm all for it; it's certainly a cleaner > solution.
*shrug* I don't have permissions for that either, but we can CC people who might get into touch with some who can. Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
