Re: [patches] new text patching for review

2007-07-19 Thread Mathieu Desnoyers
* Andi Kleen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Thursday 19 July 2007 22:30:12 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > Andi Kleen wrote: > > > Mathieu Desnoyers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > >> I see that IRQs are disabled in alternative_instructions(), but it does > > >> not protect against NMIs, w

Re: [patches] new text patching for review

2007-07-19 Thread Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Andi Kleen wrote: > Either not use any pvops or make sure all the pvops patching is atomic > on the local CPU. > Erk, not really keen on that. Sounds complicated, unless there's a nice general algorithm. > Ok you can avoid MCEs by not enabling them until after you patch (which I > think > is

Re: [patches] new text patching for review

2007-07-19 Thread Andi Kleen
On Thursday 19 July 2007 22:51:51 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Andi Kleen wrote: > > Normally there are not that many NMIs or MCEs at boot, but it would > > be still good to avoid the very rare crash by auditing the code first > > [better than try to debug it on some production system later] > >

Re: [patches] new text patching for review

2007-07-19 Thread Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Andi Kleen wrote: > Normally there are not that many NMIs or MCEs at boot, but it would > be still good to avoid the very rare crash by auditing the code first > [better than try to debug it on some production system later] > Auditing it for what? If we want to make patching safe against NMI/M

Re: [patches] new text patching for review

2007-07-19 Thread Andi Kleen
On Thursday 19 July 2007 22:30:12 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Andi Kleen wrote: > > Mathieu Desnoyers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> I see that IRQs are disabled in alternative_instructions(), but it does > >> not protect against NMIs, which could come at a very inappropriate > >> moment.