lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Aug]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86/entry: Clarify the RF saving/restoring situation with SYSCALL/SYSRET
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:19 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
> From: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
>
> Clarify why exactly RF cannot be restored properly by SYSRET to avoid
> confusion.
>
> No functionality change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
> ---
> arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S | 14 +++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
> index 8956eae04c25..80ad6d0fe38b 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
> @@ -288,11 +288,15 @@ return_from_SYSCALL_64:
> jne opportunistic_sysret_failed
>
> /*
> - * SYSRET can't restore RF. SYSRET can restore TF, but unlike IRET,
> - * restoring TF results in a trap from userspace immediately after
> - * SYSRET. This would cause an infinite loop whenever #DB happens
> - * with register state that satisfies the opportunistic SYSRET
> - * conditions. For example, single-stepping this user code:
> + * SYSCALL clears RF when it saves rFLAGS in R11 so SYSRET cannot

I would change "so" and "and" -- the CPU designers could have make
SYSRET restore RF, but they chose not to.

Other than that substitution:

Acked-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-08-03 19:21    [W:0.606 / U:0.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site