From: Ren Qiaowei <qiaowei.ren@intel.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
x86@kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] x86, mpx: hook #BR exception handler to allocate bound tables
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 13:39:44 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52E742A0.8000209@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrW0L79gjXRD5J5RZQTiZT+MYDYHQ0u7hoeKP=XVqDT5HA@mail.gmail.com>
On 01/28/2014 01:21 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Ren Qiaowei <qiaowei.ren@intel.com> wrote:
>> On 01/28/2014 04:36 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>>
>>>> + bd_entry = status & MPX_BNDSTA_ADDR_MASK;
>>>> + if ((bd_entry >= bd_base) && (bd_entry < bd_base + bd_size))
>>>> + allocate_bt(bd_entry);
>>>
>>>
>>> What happens if this fails? Retrying forever isn't very nice.
>>>
>> If allocation of the bound table fail, the related entry in the bound
>> directory is still invalid. The following access to this entry still produce
>> #BR fault.
>>
>
> By the "following access" I think you mean the same instruction that
> just trapped -- it will trap again because the exception hasn't been
> fixed up. Then mmap will fail again, and you'll retry again, leading
> to an infinite loop.
>
I don't mean the same instruction that just trapped.
> I think that failure to fix up the exception should either let the
> normal bounds error through or should raise SIGBUS.
>
Maybe we need HPA help answer this question. Peter, what do you think
about it? If allocation of the bound table fail, what should we do?
>>
>>>> + if (!user_mode(regs)) {
>>>> + if (!fixup_exception(regs)) {
>>>> + tsk->thread.error_code = error_code;
>>>> + tsk->thread.trap_nr = X86_TRAP_BR;
>>>> + die("bounds", regs, error_code);
>>>> + }
>>>
>>>
>>> Why the fixup? Unless I'm missing something, the kernel has no business
>>> getting #BR on access to a user address.
>>>
>>> Or are you adding code to allow the kernel to use MPX itself? If so,
>>> shouldn't this use an MPX-specific fixup to allow normal C code to use
>>> this stuff?
>>>
>> It checks whether #BR come from user-space. You can see do_trap_no_signal().
>
> Wasn't #BR using do_trap before? do_trap doesn't call
> fixup_exception. I don't see why it should do it now. (I also don't
> think it should come from kernel space until someone adds kernel-mode
> MPX support.)
>
do_trap() -> do_trap_no_signal() call similar code to check if the fault
occurred in userspace or kernel space. You can see previous discussion
for the first version of this patchset.
Thanks,
Qiaowei
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-28 5:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-26 9:08 [PATCH v3 0/4] Intel MPX support Qiaowei Ren
2014-01-26 8:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-01-26 8:20 ` Ren Qiaowei
2014-01-28 6:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-01-28 7:01 ` Ren Qiaowei
2014-01-28 18:26 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-01-26 9:08 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] x86, mpx: add documentation on Intel MPX Qiaowei Ren
2014-01-26 3:06 ` Randy Dunlap
2014-01-26 3:15 ` Ren Qiaowei
2014-01-27 20:27 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-01-28 3:40 ` Ren Qiaowei
2014-01-26 9:08 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] x86, mpx: hook #BR exception handler to allocate bound tables Qiaowei Ren
2014-01-27 20:36 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-01-28 3:35 ` Ren Qiaowei
2014-01-28 5:21 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-01-28 5:39 ` Ren Qiaowei [this message]
2014-01-28 6:42 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-01-28 6:46 ` Ren Qiaowei
2014-01-26 9:08 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] x86, mpx: add prctl commands PR_MPX_INIT, PR_MPX_RELEASE Qiaowei Ren
2014-01-26 8:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-01-26 8:23 ` Ren Qiaowei
2014-01-26 8:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-01-26 11:37 ` Ren, Qiaowei
2014-01-27 1:50 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-01-27 1:55 ` Ren Qiaowei
2014-01-27 2:10 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-01-27 2:16 ` Ren Qiaowei
2014-01-27 21:54 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-01-27 22:01 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-01-26 9:08 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-01-26 12:49 ` Ren, Qiaowei
2014-01-26 15:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-01-27 2:01 ` Ren Qiaowei
2014-01-27 20:59 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-01-26 9:08 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] x86, mpx: extend siginfo structure to include bound violation information Qiaowei Ren
2014-01-26 4:22 ` David Rientjes
2014-01-26 4:39 ` Ren Qiaowei
2014-01-26 21:38 ` David Rientjes
2014-01-27 1:34 ` Ren Qiaowei
2014-01-27 1:53 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-01-27 1:56 ` Ren Qiaowei
2014-01-27 21:58 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-01-28 2:43 ` Ren Qiaowei
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=52E742A0.8000209@intel.com \
--to=qiaowei.ren@intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.