[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200418171810.n4vcaihdfksltuqg@treble>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 12:18:10 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>, jthierry@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/17] objtool: Better handle IRET
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 04:53:31PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I'm wondering if this would be easier if we just moved the guts of
> sync_core() into asm.
>
> In the near future, I think we want to rework it a tiny bit. In
> particular, I think we're going to want to make sync_core() do:
>
> if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SERIALIZE))
> asm volatile ("serialize");
> else
> iret_to_self();
>
> where iret_to_self() is the meat of the IRET hack. And then we're
> going to add a new thingy unmask_nmi() that does iret_to_self() on
> everything except SEV-ES. The near-term motivation is that I think we
> have some genuine bugs in a couple of corner cases:
>
> 1. On AMD chips, if NMI hits user code with invalid CS or SS, we will
> enter on the NMI stack, switch to the normal stack, and return with
> IRET, and the IRET will fail. And then we end up in a nasty state in
> which NMIs are masked but the code path we run doesn't expect that.
> So we should unmask_nmi() in fixup_bad_iret() or similar. Intel CPUs
> are unaffected because Intel is differently quirky.
>
> 2. do_nmi() does this:
>
> if (user_mode(regs))
> mds_user_clear_cpu_buffers();
>
> because it can't safely call prepare_exit_to_usermode(). This is a
> gross wart and I'd like to fix it. Fixing it involves teaching the
> relevant code paths to unmask_nmis() if they're going to so IRQs-on
> exit work.
>
> None of this is really relevant to the current patch, but it wouldn't
> be unreasonable to turn the IRET thing from an inline asm into a real
> asm function if it makes objtool's life easier.
I don't think that would make objtool's life any easier -- it still has
to understand the stack impact of the IRET-to-self thing regardless.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists