linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 16/32] x86/tdx: Handle MWAIT, MONITOR and WBINVD

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]

Message-ID: <497d9293-9111-5d2e-2d19-7343467ff9cd@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 May 2021 10:06:02 -0700
From:   Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:     Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
        Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 16/32] x86/tdx: Handle MWAIT, MONITOR and WBINVD


need anything else than what #GP already does.

> How do these end up in practice?  Do they still say "general protection
> fault..."?

Yes, but there's a #VE specific message before it that prints the exit 
reason.


>
> Isn't that really mean for anyone that goes trying to figure out what
> caused these?  If they see a "general protection fault" from WBINVD and
> go digging in the SDM for how a #GP can come from WBINVD, won't they be
> sorely disappointed?

They'll see both the message and also that it isn't a true #VE in the 
backtrace.


-Andi