From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
Cc: "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
"andi@firstfloor.org" <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"stable@kernel.org" <stable@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [patch] x64, fpu: fix possible FPU leakage in error conditions
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:54:31 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0807241431180.8109@nehalem.linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080724212351.GM14380@linux-os.sc.intel.com>
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008, Suresh Siddha wrote:
>
> Meanwhile, I wanted to keep this patch simple, so that it can be easily
> applied to -stable series aswell.
Hmm. There's somethign more fundamentally wrong, it really shouldn't be
this ugly.
For example, the signal handler path right now does
if (!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, buf, sizeof(*buf)))
goto badframe;
err |= restore_i387(buf);
but the thing is, the only really valid reason for "restore_i387()" to
fail is because the read failed.
Which in turn implies that if it fails, it should just do the same thing
as that access_ok() failure did!
So why doesn't it just do
if (!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, buf, sizeof(*buf)))
goto badframe;
if (restore_i387(buf))
goto badframe:
because I don't see why that path should even _care_ about the i387
details? Especially since it doesn't even try to do that if the buffer
pointer is totally bogus..
What am I missing? This code looks unnecessarily complex, and your patch
makes it even harder to follow. Is this complexity really needed and worth
it?
Also, looking at that "math_state_restore()" thing some more, I can't for
the life of me convince myself that even just initializing the state is
enough. We've used math before, and if we cannot restore it from the
fxsave area, why would we _ever_ say that it's ok to try to continue with
some _other_ state?
IOW, rather than resetting it, shouldn't we force a SIGFPE or something?
Sorry for being difficult, but I'd much rather get the x87 state handling
_right_ and make it logically consistent than paper over yet another
mistake we've done in this area. For example, regular 32-bit x86 doesn't
do any of this crap. It just does "restore_fpu()" in math_state_restore().
Why does x86-64 need to do anythign else? It's not even a user address, it
cannot take page faults. So exactly what are we protecting against?
I may well be missing something here, so please fill me in..
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-07-24 21:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-07-24 18:04 [patch] x64, fpu: fix possible FPU leakage in error conditions Suresh Siddha
2008-07-24 18:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-07-24 18:50 ` Suresh Siddha
2008-07-24 18:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-07-24 20:27 ` Suresh Siddha
2008-07-24 20:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-07-24 21:23 ` Suresh Siddha
2008-07-24 21:54 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2008-07-24 22:25 ` Suresh Siddha
2008-07-24 22:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-07-24 23:02 ` Suresh Siddha
2008-07-24 23:06 ` Suresh Siddha
2008-07-24 23:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-07-25 1:07 ` Suresh Siddha
2008-07-26 14:37 ` Ingo Molnar
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=alpine.LFD.1.10.0807241431180.8109@nehalem.linux-foundation.org \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=stable@kernel.org \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
--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