Re: On the correctness of dbe3ed1c078c193be34326728d494c5c4bc115e2

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

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