lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 5/7] x86/mm/fault: hook up SCI verification
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 09:44:09AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 10:47 PM Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 09:42:23AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 12:45:52AM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > > If a system call runs in isolated context, it's accesses to kernel code and
> > > > data will be verified by SCI susbsytem.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/x86/mm/fault.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > There's a distinct lack of touching do_double_fault(). It appears to me
> > > that you'll instantly trigger #DF when you #PF, because the #PF handler
> > > itself will not be able to run.
> >
> > The #PF handler is able to run. On interrupt/error entry the cr3 is
> > switched to the full kernel page tables, pretty much like PTI does for
> > user <-> kernel transitions. It's in the patch 3.
> >
> >
>
> PeterZ meant page_fault, not do_page_fault. In your patch, page_fault
> and some of error_entry run before that magic switchover happens. If
> they're not in the page tables, you double-fault.

The entry code is in sci page tables, just like in user-space page tables
with PTI.

> And don't even try to do SCI magic in the double-fault handler. As I
> understand it, the SDM and APM aren't kidding when they say that #DF
> is an abort, not a fault. There is a single case in the kernel where
> we recover from #DF, and it was vetted by microcode people.
>

--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-01 07:41    [W:0.062 / U:1.824 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site