From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: SVM: fix cr8 intercept window Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:57:32 +0100 Message-ID: <5322D28C.9080009@redhat.com> References: <1394561478-8815-1-git-send-email-rkrcmar@redhat.com> <20140312010513.GA8131@amt.cnet> <20140312104047.GA7488@potion.brq.redhat.com> <53209741.3060204@redhat.com> <20140313135206.GB30596@minantech.com> <20140313170846.GA23297@potion.brq.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org To: =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= , Gleb Natapov Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140313170846.GA23297@potion.brq.redhat.com> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Il 13/03/2014 18:08, Radim Kr=C4=8Dm=C3=A1=C5=99 ha scritto: > > I agree that old code is wrong and the patch looks correct, but I o= nly > > see how the bug may cause pending IRR to not be delivered in time, > > not how interrupt can disrupt a higher priority task. Right. Also, on SMP guests the effect would likely be just a deadlock if a lower-priority ISR interrupted a higher priority task and accessed= =20 shared data (since you need anyway a spinlock in addition to raising th= e=20 IRQL). A more likely explanation is that if the remote processor delays an IPI= =20 too much, it will have a stable TLB entry. The resulting random=20 corruption of paged memory is compatible with the BAD_POOL_HEADER error= =20 codes that Radim observed. > Paolo, can you change the last sentence to ", which means we don't > inject pending IRR immediately."? (or do we just forget it?) It's already in Linus's tree. Paolo