[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190426074223.GY4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 09:42:23 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Jonathan Adams <jwadams@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/7] x86/mm/fault: hook up SCI verification
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 12:45:52AM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> If a system call runs in isolated context, it's accesses to kernel code and
> data will be verified by SCI susbsytem.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/mm/fault.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
There's a distinct lack of touching do_double_fault(). It appears to me
that you'll instantly trigger #DF when you #PF, because the #PF handler
itself will not be able to run.
And then obviously you have to be very careful to make sure #DF can,
_at_all_times_ run, otherwise you'll tripple-fault and we all know what
that does.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists