[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bb94beeb-061d-c795-7ed6-3c9d2c73191c@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2022 13:39:37 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, ak@...ux.intel.com,
dan.j.williams@...el.com, david@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com, seanjc@...gle.com,
thomas.lendacky@....com, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 3/3] x86/tdx: Handle load_unaligned_zeropad() page-cross
to a shared page
On 5/26/22 13:36, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 09:20:56AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 5/24/22 15:10, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>> + /*
>>> + * MMIO accesses suppose to be naturally aligned and therefore never
>>> + * cross a page boundary. Seeing unaligned accesses indicates a bug or
>>> + * load_unaligned_zeropad() that steps into unmapped shared page.
>> Wait a sec though...
>>
>> We've been talking all along about how MMIO accesses are in some cases
>> just plain old compiler-generated memory accesses. It's *probably* bad
>> code that does this, but it's not necessarily a bug.
> Compiler-generated memory accesses tend to be aligned too. You need to do
> something make them unalinged, like __packed or pointer trickery.
I totally agree. But, the point is that __packed or pointer trickery is
goofy, but it's not necessarily a bug. This might crash the kernel on
goofy stuff, not bugs.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists