linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] x86-32: Split cache flush handler from simd handler

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]

Message-ID: <73c1f2161003192108n72311e00h49fcf9eac5a2b4fc@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:08:36 -0400
From:	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] x86-32: Split cache flush handler from simd handler

On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 6:33 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 03/18/2010 11:20 AM, Brian Gerst wrote:
>> Make the cache flush handler a seperate function, and use
>> an alternative to call the appropriate handler.
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
>> +dotraplinkage void
>> +do_cache_flush_error(struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code)
>> +{
>> +     conditional_sti(regs);
>> +
>> +     /*
>> +      * Handle strange cache flush from user space exception.
>> +      * This is undocumented behaviour.
>> +      */
>> +     if (regs->flags & X86_VM_MASK) {
>> +             handle_vm86_fault((struct kernel_vm86_regs *)regs, error_code);
>> +             return;
>> +     }
>> +     current->thread.trap_no = 19;
>> +     current->thread.error_code = error_code;
>> +     die_if_kernel("cache flush denied", regs, error_code);
>> +     force_sig(SIGSEGV, current);
>> +}
>> +#endif
>
> Does anyone have *any idea* what processor this applies to?  I've
> tracked the code back all the way to the original inclusion in the
> kernel, and there isn't even the slightest hint.
>
> The comment, of course, is a great example on how *not* to write
> comments... it should have mentioned the CPU in question.

This thread appears to describe the problem:
http://marc.info/?t=104960872800014&r=1&w=2

And the initial patch:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=104960870106838&w=2

It looks like to me, that an AMD 486 clone has an erratum where the
invd instruction from userspace generates exception 19 (13 hex)
instead of #GP (13 dec).

--
Brian Gerst
--
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/