>>> On 05.02.18 at 19:04, wrote:
> But as you correctly pointed out, it was a very long way from being
> complete. We currently have no idea whether we are in NMI context, so
> arranging not to not execute an iret is hard.
As long as we don't mean to patch extremely early or extremely
late parts
On 05/02/18 16:20, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.02.18 at 16:16, wrote:
>> On 05/02/18 14:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 05.02.18 at 11:24, wrote:
During patching, there is a very slim risk that an NMI or MCE interrupt in
the
middle of altering the code in the NMI/MCE paths, in
On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 10:24:58AM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> During patching, there is a very slim risk that an NMI or MCE interrupt in the
> middle of altering the code in the NMI/MCE paths, in which case bad things
> will happen.
>
> The NMI risk can be eliminated by running the patching loo
>>> On 05.02.18 at 16:16, wrote:
> On 05/02/18 14:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 05.02.18 at 11:24, wrote:
>>> During patching, there is a very slim risk that an NMI or MCE interrupt in
>>> the
>>> middle of altering the code in the NMI/MCE paths, in which case bad things
>>> will happen.
>>>
>
On 05/02/18 14:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.02.18 at 11:24, wrote:
>> During patching, there is a very slim risk that an NMI or MCE interrupt in
>> the
>> middle of altering the code in the NMI/MCE paths, in which case bad things
>> will happen.
>>
>> The NMI risk can be eliminated by runnin
>>> On 05.02.18 at 11:24, wrote:
> During patching, there is a very slim risk that an NMI or MCE interrupt in the
> middle of altering the code in the NMI/MCE paths, in which case bad things
> will happen.
>
> The NMI risk can be eliminated by running the patching loop in NMI context, at
> which
