[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMzpN2hscOXJFzm07Hk=2Ttr3wQFSisxP=EZhRMtAU6xSm8zSw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 15:38:02 -0500
From: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Eduardo Valentin <eduval@...zon.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"Liguori, Anthony" <aliguori@...zon.com>,
Daniel Gruss <daniel.gruss@...k.tugraz.at>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/34] x86/entry/32: Restore segments before int registers
On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 1:23 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 5:12 AM, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org> wrote:
>>
>>> The things is, we *know* that we will restore two segment registers with the
>>> user cr3 already loaded: CS and SS get restored with the final iret.
>>
>> Yeah, I know, but the iret-exception path is fine because it will
>> deliver a SIGILL and doesn't return to the faulting iret.
>
> That's not so much my worry, as just getting %cr3 wrong. The fact is,
> we still take the exception, and we still have to handle it, and that
> still needs to get the user<->kernel cr3 right.
>
> So then the whole "restore segments early" must be wrong, because
> *that* path must get it all right too, no?
>
> And it appears that the code *does* get it right, and you can just
> avoid this patch entirely?
>
>> The iret-exception case is tested by the ldt_gdt selftest (the
>> do_multicpu_tests subtest). But I didn't actually tested single-stepping
>> through sysenter yet. I just re-ran the same tests I did with v2 on this
>> patch-set.
>
> Ok. Maybe we should have a test for the "take DB on first instruction
> of sysenter".
>
> Linus
There already is a test: single_step_syscall.c
--
Brian Gerst
Powered by blists - more mailing lists