linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 00/75] x86: SEV-ES Guest Support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 15 Jul 2020 11:24:56 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>, hpa@...or.com,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Cfir Cohen <cfir@...gle.com>,
        Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@...gle.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Mike Stunes <mstunes@...are.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Martin Radev <martin.b.radev@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/75] x86: SEV-ES Guest Support

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 02:08:02PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> The #VC entry code now tries to pretend that the #VC handler does not
> use an IST stack by switching to the task stack if entered from
> user-mode or the SYSCALL entry path. When it is entered from
> kernel-mode it is doing its best to switch back to the interrupted
> stack. This is only possible if it is entered from a known and safe
> kernel stack (e.g. not the entry stack). If the previous stack is not
> safe to use the #VC handler switches to a fall-back stack and calls a
> special handler function which, as of now, just panics the system. For
> now this is safe as #VC exceptions only happen at know places which
> use a safe stack.
> 
> The use of the fall-back stack is necessary so that the special
> handler function can safely raise nested #VC exceptions, for
> example to print a panic message.

Can we get some more words -- preferably in actual code comments, on
when exactly #VC happens?

Because the only thing I remember is that #VC could happen on any memop,
but I also have vague memories of that being a later extention.