[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <53457CDD0200007800007483@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 16:01:17 +0100
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To: "Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
"David Vrabel" <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
Cc: <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>, <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
<srostedt@...hat.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/xen: Fix 32-bit PV guests's usage
of kernel_stack
>>> On 09.04.14 at 16:41, <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com> wrote:
> The latter load however can easy fault; The arguments for %ds in
> XSA-42/ CVE-2013-0228 applies to %{e,f,g}s as well.
And it was only that latter operation that I pointed at.
> Furthermore, I am a little concerned about the performance impact of
> this. I would have thought that in most cases, %fs will already be
> correct, at which point reloading it twice is a waste of time.
Why would you expect %fs on the IRET path to commonly point to the
kernel segment rather than whatever user mode wants/needs? Also, I'm
not sure adding conditionals here wouldn't harm performance about as
much as the save/load/restore. If anything I'd look into open coding
GET_THREAD_INFO() without using %fs for this single case.
Jan
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists