lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: On the correctness of dbe3ed1c078c193be34326728d494c5c4bc115e2
On 09/01/2013 09:12 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 9:00 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
>> On 09/01/2013 08:58 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>
>>> Not necessarily. Don't we basically do exactly that for the F00F bug
>>> workaround, for example?
>>
>> We do, but only after matching on an exact address (is_f00f_bug()).
>> Note also that is_f00f_bug() isn't conditional on PF_USER.
>
> Right. But I'm wondering why you care? There's nothing we can do about
> spurious page faults if they dp happen. The PF_USER thing we do means
> that bad_area_nosemaphore will go through the "send signal" path.
>
> I guess we can remove the setting of PF_USER, but that would just mean
> that then we have to test for "is_user_vm()" in bad_area_semaphore
> instead. So the end result would be exactly the same.
>
> And my point was that we actually do have this "users can cause page
> faults on IDT etc accesses" as a real thing.
>
> So basically: what do you propose to do? You basically can't remove
> the line without adding it somewhere else.
>

is_f00f_bug() already contains:

if (nr == 6) {
do_invalid_op(regs, 0);
return 1;
}

... that's where we're supposed to issue SIGILL.

-hpa



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-09-01 18:41    [W:0.154 / U:0.288 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site