[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <560B3B7F.4000305@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:31:43 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Use entire page for the per-cpu GDT only if
paravirt-enabled
On 09/29/2015 06:20 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Does anyone know what happens if you stick a non-accessed segment in
>>> the GDT, map the GDT RO, and access it?
>>
>> You should get a #PF, as you guess, but go ahead and test it if you
>> want to make sure.
>
> I tested this by accident once when workinng on what has become known
> as coreboot. Early in boot with your GDT in a EEPROM switching from
> real mode to 32bit protected mode causes a write and locks up the
> machine when the hardware declines the write to the GDT to set the
> accessed bit. As I recall the write kept being retried and retried and
> retried...
>
> Setting the access bit in the GDT cleared up the problem and I did not
> look back.
>
> Way up in 64bit mode something might be different, but I don't know why
> cpu designeres would waste the silicon.
>
This is totally different from a TLB violation. In your case, the write
goes through as far as the CPU is concerned, but when the data is
fetched back, it hasn't changed. A write to a TLB-protected location
will #PF.
-hpa
--
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