From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 01/10] x86/fpu/signal: Clarify exception handling in restore_fpregs_from_user()
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2021 21:22:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87ilzkcd9c.ffs@tglx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YS+upEmTfpZub3s9@google.com>
Sean,
On Wed, Sep 01 2021 at 16:47, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2021, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Though while for the FPU use case we really want to handle the #MC case,
>> it's not clear to me whether this is actually correct for SGX.
>>
>> Jarkko, Sean, Dave?
>
> Are you asking about #MC specifically, or about SGX consuming the trap number in
> general?
#MC
> For #MC, it's probably a moot point because #MC on ENCLS is not recoverable for
> current hardware. If #MC somehow occurs on ENCLS and doesn't kill the platform,
> "handling" the #MC in SGX is probably wrong. Note, Tony is working on a series to
> support recoverable #MC on SGX stuff on future hardware[*], but I'm not sure that's
> relevant to this discussion.
Probably not.
> As for SGX consuming the trap number in general, it's correct. For non-KVM usage,
> it's nice to have but not strictly necessary. Any fault except #PF on ENCLS is
> guaranteed to be a kernel or hardware bug; SGX uses the trap number to WARN on a
> !#PF exception, e.g. on #GP or #UD. Not having the trap number would mean losing
> those sanity checks, which have been useful in the past.
>
> For virtualizing SGX, KVM needs the trap number so that it can inject the correct
> exception into the guest, e.g. if the guest violates the ENCLS concurrency rules
> it should get a #GP, whereas a EPCM violation should #PF.
Yes, I understood that part, but I was confused about the #MC part.
Thanks for clarifying!
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-01 19:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-30 16:27 [patch 00/10] x86/fpu: Clean up error handling in sigframe related code Thomas Gleixner
2021-08-30 16:27 ` [patch 01/10] x86/fpu/signal: Clarify exception handling in restore_fpregs_from_user() Thomas Gleixner
2021-08-30 19:33 ` Borislav Petkov
2021-08-30 20:07 ` Borislav Petkov
2021-08-30 20:09 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-08-30 21:02 ` Al Viro
2021-08-30 21:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-08-30 21:30 ` Al Viro
2021-08-30 22:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-08-30 22:12 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-08-30 22:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-08-31 0:06 ` Al Viro
2021-08-31 0:34 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-08-31 7:39 ` Borislav Petkov
2021-08-31 18:39 ` Luck, Tony
2021-09-01 7:27 ` Borislav Petkov
2021-08-30 22:01 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-08-30 22:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-09-01 12:00 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-09-01 15:52 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-09-01 16:47 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-01 19:22 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2021-09-01 19:22 ` Dave Hansen
2021-09-02 13:08 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2021-09-02 14:08 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-09-03 6:00 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2021-09-03 6:05 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2021-08-30 16:27 ` [patch 02/10] x86/fpu/signal: Move header zeroing out of xsave_to_user_sigframe() Thomas Gleixner
2021-08-30 16:27 ` [patch 03/10] x86/fpu/signal: Move xstate clearing out of copy_fpregs_to_sigframe() Thomas Gleixner
2021-08-30 16:27 ` [patch 04/10] x86/fpu/signal: Change return type of copy_fpstate_to_sigframe() to boolean Thomas Gleixner
2021-08-30 16:27 ` [patch 05/10] x86/fpu/signal: Change return type of copy_fpregs_to_sigframe() helpers " Thomas Gleixner
2021-08-30 16:27 ` [patch 06/10] x86/signal: Change return type of restore_sigcontext() " Thomas Gleixner
2021-08-30 16:27 ` [patch 07/10] x86/fpu/signal: Change return type of fpu__restore_sig() " Thomas Gleixner
2021-08-30 16:27 ` [patch 08/10] x86/fpu/signal: Change return type of __fpu_restore_sig() " Thomas Gleixner
2021-08-30 16:27 ` [patch 09/10] x86/fpu/signal: Change return code of check_xstate_in_sigframe() " Thomas Gleixner
2021-08-30 16:27 ` [patch 10/10] x86/fpu/signal: Change return code of restore_fpregs_from_user() " Thomas Gleixner
2021-08-30 17:39 ` [patch 00/10] x86/fpu: Clean up error handling in sigframe related code Linus Torvalds
2021-08-30 18:51 ` Thomas Gleixner
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=87ilzkcd9c.ffs@tglx \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jarkko@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox