Re: Dealing with the NMI mess

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Willy Tarreau <w@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 08:48:57AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> So by the time we detect that we've hit a watchpoint, the instruction
>> that tripped it is done and we don't need RF.  Furthermore, after
>> reading 17.3.1.1: I *think* that regs->flags withh have RF *clear* if
>> we hit a watchpoint.
>
> Apparently after reading 17.3.1.1, it seems like RF can still be set
> if a data breakpoint triggers in a repeated string instruction before
> the last iteration. However I don't think we care because as long as
> we return to the string instruction, since the data location was already
> visited it won't trigger again so the loss of the flag should be safe.
>

Oh, right.  So my proposal is wrong: it'll clear a watchpoint
incorrectly if we hit it in the middle of a string operation.

So we should either parse dr0..dr3 (whichever one triggered) or do
Peter's think and clear dr7 entirely.  I still prefer just clearing
the breakpoint that triggered.

--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/