[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fa788a95-1814-4782-8a36-f9dce7a04b66@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 09:16:13 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cho@...rosoft.com, decui@...rosoft.com, John.Starks@...rosoft.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/tdx: Generate SIGBUS on userspace MMIO
On 6/10/24 06:55, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> Enlightened userspace may choose to handle MMIO on their own if the
>> kernel does not emulate it.
>>
>> Handle the EPT_VIOLATION exit reason for userspace and deliver SIGBUS
>> instead of SIGSEGV. SIGBUS is more appropriate for the MMIO situation.
> Is any userspace _actually_ doing this? Sure, SIGBUS is more
> appropriate but in practice unprepared userspace crashes either way.
I also can't help but wonder if there's a better way to do this.
Just thinking out loud.... Ideally, we'd reject creating a potentially
troublesome VMA at mmap() time. That's way better than, for instance,
panic()'ing at some random place in the middle of program execution.
But I guess that's likely not possible because someone could be doing a
VM_MIXEDMAP VMA that only has normal private pages and never _actually_
needs or has a shared page mapped.
I'd still love to know what actual kernel drivers and actual userspace
would be involved in this whole dance. It's still way too theoretical
for me.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists