[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMzpN2hkJXyt87ioNowYhxm7ZmSjz_qcc=AZpzFhafKGx_+tzg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 15:55:11 -0400
From: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Andrew Lutomirski <amluto@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>,
Alexandre Julliard <julliard@...ehq.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86-64: espfix for 64-bit mode *PROTOTYPE*
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 2:51 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 04/22/2014 11:17 AM, Brian Gerst wrote:
>>>
>>> That is the entry condition that we have to deal with. The fact that
>>> the switch to the IST is unconditional is what makes ISTs hard to deal with.
>>
>> Right, that is why you switch away from the IST as soon as possible,
>> copying the data that is already pushed there to another stack so it
>> won't be overwritten by a recursive fault.
>>
>
> That simply will not work if you can take a #GP due to the "safe" MSR
> functions from NMI and #MC context, which would be my main concern.
In that case (#2 above), you would switch to the previous %rsp (in the
NMI/MC stack), copy the exception frame from the IST, and continue
with the #GP handler. That effectively is the same as it is today,
where no stack switch occurs on the #GP fault.
--
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