linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] do not keep interrupt window closed by sti in real mode

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 08 Apr 2009 08:45:18 +0300
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] do not keep interrupt window closed by sti in real mode

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Glauber Costa wrote:
>   
>> While in real mode, sti does not block interrupts from the subsequent
>> instruction. This is stated at Intel SDM Volume 2b, page 4-432
>>     
>
> I don't see how you're getting that idea from the STI documentation --
> and I am quite sure that that is not the case.  Quite on the contrary.
> The only differences between protected mode and real mode has to do with
> the handling of VIF when CPL=3 (this rather naturally falls out if one
> considers CPL=0 in real mode).
>   

I'm guessing the problem is due to the second instruction.  We don't 
clear the 'blocked by interrupt shadow' flag when we emulate, which 
extends interrupt shadow by one more instruction.  If the instruction 
sequence is 'sti hlt' we end in an inconsistent state.



-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.

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