[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 19:43:45 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bpetkov@...e.de>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Eduardo Valentin <eduval@...zon.com>, aliguori@...zon.com,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 13/16] x86/ldt: Introduce LDT write fault handler
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 09:58:58AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> > > +bool __ldt_write_fault(unsigned long address)
> > > +{
> > > + struct ldt_struct *ldt = current->mm->context.ldt;
> > > + unsigned long start, end, entry;
> > > + struct desc_struct *desc;
> > > +
> > > + start = (unsigned long) ldt->entries;
> > > + end = start + ldt->nr_entries * LDT_ENTRY_SIZE;
> > > +
> > > + if (address < start || address >= end)
> > > + return false;
> > > +
> > > + desc = (struct desc_struct *) ldt->entries;
> > > + entry = (address - start) / LDT_ENTRY_SIZE;
> > > + desc[entry].type |= 0x01;
> >
> > You have another patch that unconditionally sets the accessed bit on
> > installation. What gives?
>
> Right, initially we didn't set that unconditionally. But even when we
> did do that, we've observed the CPU generating these write faults.
>
> > Also, this patch is going to die a horrible death if IRET ever hits
> > this condition. Or load gs.
>
> Us touching the CS/SS descriptors with LAR should avoid IRET going off
> the rails, I'm not familiar with the whole gs thing, but we could very
> easily augment refresh_ldt_segments() I suppose.
>
> Would you care to be a little more specific and or propose a testcase
> for this situation?
Again. load gs does not cause a fault at all like any other segment
load. The fault comes when the segment is accessed the first time or via
LAR.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists