[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200729084947.GY119549@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 10:49:47 +0200
From: peterz@...radead.org
To: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
Cc: "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Borislav Petkov" <bp@...en8.de>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Tony Luck" <tony.luck@...el.com>, "H Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Andy Lutomirski" <luto@...nel.org>,
"Ravi V Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
"Xiaoyao Li " <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>, "x86" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/bus_lock: Enable bus lock detection
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 02:35:00PM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> #DB for bus lock detect fixes all issues in #AC for split lock detect:
> 1) It's architectural ... just need to look at one CPUID bit to know it
> exists
> 2) The IA32_DEBUGCTL MSR, which reports bus lock in #DB, is per-thread.
> So each process or guest can have different behavior.
And it generates a whole new problem due to #DB being an IST, and
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c b/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
> index b038695f36c5..58725567da39 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
> @@ -812,6 +812,16 @@ static void handle_debug(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long dr6, bool user)
> if (!user && !dr6)
> return;
>
> + /* Handle bus lock. */
> + if (!(dr6 & DR_BUS_LOCK)) {
> + cond_local_irq_enable(regs);
> + if (user)
> + handle_user_bus_lock(regs);
> + else
> + handle_kernel_bus_lock(regs);
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> /*
> * If dr6 has no reason to give us about the origin of this trap,
> * then it's very likely the result of an icebp/int01 trap.
we very much rely on #DB never recursing, which we carefully crafted by
disallowing hardare breakpoints on noinstr code and clearing DR7 early.
But now it can... please keep the pieces.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists