From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754673AbcGUW1R (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 21 Jul 2016 18:27:17 -0400
Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:18573 "EHLO mga01.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754174AbcGUW1O (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 21 Jul 2016 18:27:14 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,401,1464678000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="1021590677"
Subject: Re: Minor PKRU bug?
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
References: <CALCETrVUZAo2=ZK8EZxjHDGiUj=XU_d-=L9SSDYU+F75CZiLsA@mail.gmail.com>
 <57850D8A.9090801@linux.intel.com>
 <bdb6c72a-9119-968f-9d85-c0db59835db7@zytor.com>
 <CALCETrXRMksOhhez4xHWFyR8NRXLVByp73TDyh2iMjGXigW69g@mail.gmail.com>
 <5791402C.4050300@linux.intel.com>
 <CALCETrViDkmaZCx2rEakqiZmar9cjLjFTmBMDKyapAnxH0euqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1CBB681E-737A-4799-ADE6-3CDD904D33D3@zytor.com>
Cc: X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Message-ID: <57914C24.3040408@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 15:26:44 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1CBB681E-737A-4799-ADE6-3CDD904D33D3@zytor.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 07/21/2016 02:48 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> >I like it, except that reading just a single byte is a bit silly.
>> >OTOH, that's what the current code needs and I see no fundamental
>> >reason to change it until there's a real user.
>>> 
> The thing is that we can't actually test this, since there is no
> machine on which this code path will ever execute.  That concerns me
> a bit.

I rigged the is_prefetch() check to return true on an instruction that I
know causes a sigbus.  If I run without protection keys, this setup sits
in a never-ending fault loop, which is the behavior that we want from
*real* prefetch instructions.

But, if I have that instruction be marked execute-only by pkeys,
is_prefetch() returns false and the app gets the sigbus, and it *looks*
like it came from the (fake) prefetch instruction, which isn't what we want.

It's not exactly a real-world test, but it did convince me that the code
is doing the right thing.