lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 02/18] x86/asm/64: Split the iret-to-user and iret-to-kernel paths
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 01:26:34AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> These code paths will diverge soon.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>> arch/x86/entry/entry_64_compat.S | 2 +-
>> arch/x86/kernel/head_64.S | 2 +-
>> 3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
>> index afe1f403fa0e..493e5e234d36 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
>> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
>> @@ -321,7 +321,7 @@ syscall_return_via_sysret:
>>
>> opportunistic_sysret_failed:
>> SWAPGS
>> - jmp restore_regs_and_iret
>> + jmp restore_regs_and_return_to_usermode
>
> rstor_regs_ret_user
>
> still sounds pretty ok to me and it is shorter and it is using the
> *RSTOR spelling the respective FPU insns use, so should be recognizable. :-)
>
> And the other one could be
>
> rstor_regs_ret_kernel
>
> of course.
>
>> END(entry_SYSCALL_64)
>>
>> ENTRY(stub_ptregs_64)
>> @@ -423,7 +423,7 @@ ENTRY(ret_from_fork)
>> call syscall_return_slowpath /* returns with IRQs disabled */
>> TRACE_IRQS_ON /* user mode is traced as IRQS on */
>> SWAPGS
>> - jmp restore_regs_and_iret
>> + jmp restore_regs_and_return_to_usermode
>>
>> 1:
>> /* kernel thread */
>> @@ -612,7 +612,19 @@ GLOBAL(retint_user)
>> call prepare_exit_to_usermode
>> TRACE_IRQS_IRETQ
>> SWAPGS
>> - jmp restore_regs_and_iret
>> +
>> +GLOBAL(restore_regs_and_return_to_usermode)
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_ENTRY
>> + testl $3, CS(%rsp)
>
> testb
>
> ditto for the other spot.
>
>> + jnz 1f
>> + ud2
>> +1:
>> +#endif
>
> Why aren't we exploding here unconditionally? I mean, we don't want to
> return with RPL != 3 CS for whatever reason...

Performance? I'll admit that both of these paths are extremely slow
no matter what, but it's nice to get a real dump if we screw it up.

I'll leave it as is for v2. Feel free to argue more in v2 :)

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-01 12:34    [W:0.059 / U:2.824 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site