[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5b9a2cef-7b4f-41c3-9f64-4fea4d007cdf@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 17:20:31 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Robert Gill <rtgill82@...il.com>,
"Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)" <regressions@...mhuis.info>,
antonio.gomez.iglesias@...ux.intel.com, daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/entry_32: Move CLEAR_CPU_BUFFERS before CR3 switch
On 4/26/24 16:48, Pawan Gupta wrote:
> Move the VERW before the CR3 switch for 32-bit kernels as a workaround.
I look at the 32-bit code so rarely, I seem to forget have to re-learn
this gunk every time I look at it. Take a look at RESTORE_INT_REGS. On
32-bit, we actually restore %ds:
popl %ds
So even doing this:
> + CLEAR_CPU_BUFFERS
> /* Restore user state */
> RESTORE_REGS pop=4 # skip orig_eax/error_code
> - CLEAR_CPU_BUFFERS
> .Lirq_return:
fixes the issue. Moving it above the CR3 switch also works of course,
but I don't think this has anything to do with CR3. It's just that
userspace sets a funky %ds value and CLEAR_CPU_BUFFERS uses ds:.
I don't think any of the segment registers can have secrets in them, can
they? I mean, it's possible, but in practice I can't imagine.
So why not just do the CLEAR_CPU_BUFFERS in RESTORE_REGS but after
RESTORE_INT_REGS? You might be able to do it universally, or you could
pass in a macro argument to do it conditionally.
P.S. Can we remove 32-bit support yet? Please? :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists