> On May 13, 2020, at 5:41 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ----- On May 12, 2020, at 9:51 PM, rostedt [email protected] wrote:
>
>>> On Fri, 8 May 2020 17:39:00 -0700
>>> Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 7:15 AM Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is called from deep entry ASM in a situation where instrumentation
>>>> will cause more harm than providing useful information.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> Maybe add to changelog:
>>>
>>> Switch from memmove() to memcpy() because memmove() can't be called
>>> from noinstr code.
>>
>> Yes please, because I was about to say that there was changes that
>> didn't seem to fit the change log.
>>
>> I would also add a comment in the code saying that we need the temp
>> variable to use memcpy as memmove can't be used in noinstr code.
>
> Looking at an updated version of the tree, I see the acked-by from Andy,
> but not comment about switching from memmove to memcpy.
>
> Also, I notice a significant undocumented change in this patch: it changes
> a this_cpu_read() (which presumes preemption is enabled) to a
> __this_cpu_read().
>
> So the 100$ question: is preemption enabled or not in fixup_bad_iret() ? And
> of
> course that change should be documented in the commit message.
>
IRQs are off, and, if they were on, the lack of a warning from the percpu
access would be the least of our concerns here.
> Thanks,
>
> Mathieu
>
> --
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> EfficiOS Inc.
> http://www.efficios.com
