[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <88261152-2de1-fe8d-7ab0-acb108e97e04@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 09:09:01 -0700
From: "Yu, Yu-cheng" <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Vedvyas Shanbhogue <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 6/9] x86/cet: Add PTRACE interface for CET
On 9/3/2020 7:26 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 9/2/20 9:35 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>>>>> + fpu__prepare_read(fpu);
>>>>>>> + cetregs = get_xsave_addr(&fpu->state.xsave, XFEATURE_CET_USER);
>>>>>>> + if (!cetregs)
>>>>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>>>> Can this branch ever be hit without a kernel bug? If yes, I think
>>>>>> -EFAULT is probably a weird error code to choose here. If no, this
>>>>>> should probably use WARN_ON(). Same thing in cetregs_set().
>>>>> When a thread is not CET-enabled, its CET state does not exist. I looked at EFAULT, and it means "Bad address". Maybe this can be ENODEV, which means "No such device"?
>> Having read the code, I’m unconvinced. It looks like a get_xsave_addr() failure means “state not saved; task sees INIT state”. So *maybe* it’s reasonable -ENODEV this, but I’m not really convinced. I tend to think we should return the actual INIT state and that we should permit writes and handle them correctly.
>
> PTRACE is asking for access to the values in the *registers*, not for
> the value in the kernel XSAVE buffer. We just happen to only have the
> kernel XSAVE buffer around.
When get_xsave_addr() returns NULL, there are three possibilities:
- XSAVE is not enabled or not supported;
- The kernel does not support the requested feature;
- The requested feature is in INIT state.
If the debugger is going to write an MSR, only in the third case would
this make a slight sense. For example, if the system has CET enabled,
but the task does not have CET enabled, and GDB is writing to a CET MSR.
But still, this is strange to me.
>
> If we want to really support PTRACE we have to allow the registers to be
> get/set, regardless of what state they are in, INIT state or not. So,
> yeah I agree with Andy.
>
GDB does not have a WRMSR mechanism. If GDB is going to write an MSR,
it will call arch_prctl or an assembly routine in memory.
Yu-cheng
Powered by blists - more mailing lists