linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86, traps: install gates using IST after cpu

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:	Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:34:47 +0800
From:	Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, traps: install gates using IST after cpu_init().

On 2015/2/26 23:14, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com> wrote:
>> X86_TRAP_NMI, X86_TRAP_DF and X86_TRAP_MC use their own stack. Those
>> stacks are invalid until cpu_init() installs TSS.
>>
>> This patch moves setting of the 3 gates after cpu_init().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>
>> If I understand correctly, logically speaking the original code is
>> incorrect.  However, there is no real bug caused by it for serval years.
>> I'm not sure whether this fix is practical or not. Fix them only for
>> logical correctness.
> 
> Acked-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
> 
> That being said, I'm pretty sure you're not fixing a bug here.

Agree.

> Delivery of an exception with no handler is every bit as fatal as
> delivery of an exception with a non-working IST handler.
> 

Just curious: in original code, what will happen if an NMI or MC raises after
'set_intr_gate_ist(X86_TRAP_NMI, &nmi, NMI_STACK);' and before cpu_init()?
In my opinion, at that time the interrupt handler is set but IST is not ready.

In addition, why it's never happened for real? Does it means NMI is possible
to be disabled?

Thank you!

> --Andy
> 


--
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/