[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whpq2=f2LdB-nc52Rd=iZkUH-N-r8OTqEfo+4UaJc7piA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 15:22:09 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Nicolai Stange <nstange@...e.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86/ftrace: make ftrace_int3_handler() not to skip
fops invocation
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 3:08 PM Sean Christopherson
<sean.j.christopherson@...el.com> wrote:
>
> FWIW, Lakemont (Quark) doesn't block NMI/SMI in the STI shadow, but I'm
> not sure that counters the "horrible errata" statement ;-). SMI+RSM saves
> and restores STI blocking in that case, but AFAICT NMI has no such
> protection and will effectively break the shadow on its IRET.
Ugh. I can't say I care deeply about Quark (ie never seemed to go
anywhere), but it's odd. I thought it was based on a Pentium core (or
i486+?). Are you saying those didn't do it either?
I have this dim memory about talking about this with some (AMD?)
engineer, and having an alternative approach for the sti shadow wrt
NMI - basically not checking interrupts in the instruction you return
to with 'iret'. I don't think it was even conditional on the "iret
from NMI", I think it was basically any iret also did the sti shadow
thing.
But I can find no actual paper to back that up, so this may be me just
making sh*t up.
> KVM is generally ok with respect to STI blocking, but ancient versions
> didn't migrate STI blocking and there's currently a hole where
> single-stepping a guest (from host userspace) could drop STI_BLOCKING
> if a different VM-Exit occurs between the single-step #DB VM-Exit and the
> instruction in the shadow. Though "don't do that" may be a reasonable
> answer in that case.
I thought the sti shadow blocked the single-step exception too? I know
"mov->ss" does block debug interrupts too.
Or are you saying that it's some "single step by emulation" that just
miss setting the STI_BLOCKING flag?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists