From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
To: "Wu, Feng" <feng.wu@intel.com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>,
xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Cc: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86: suppress SMAP and SMEP while running 32-bit PV guest code
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 10:45:56 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56DFFEE4.1020008@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E959C4978C3B6342920538CF579893F00C369E91@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
On 09/03/16 08:09, Wu, Feng wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/entry.S
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/entry.S
>> @@ -434,6 +434,7 @@ ENTRY(dom_crash_sync_extable)
>>
>> ENTRY(common_interrupt)
>> SAVE_ALL CLAC
>> + SMEP_SMAP_RESTORE
>> movq %rsp,%rdi
>> callq do_IRQ
>> jmp ret_from_intr
>> @@ -454,13 +455,64 @@ ENTRY(page_fault)
>> GLOBAL(handle_exception)
>> SAVE_ALL CLAC
>> handle_exception_saved:
>> + GET_CURRENT(%rbx)
>> testb $X86_EFLAGS_IF>>8,UREGS_eflags+1(%rsp)
>> jz exception_with_ints_disabled
>> - sti
>> +
>> +.Lsmep_smap_orig:
>> + jmp 0f
>> + .if 0 // GAS bug (affecting at least 2.22 ... 2.26)
>> + .org .Lsmep_smap_orig + (.Lsmep_smap_alt_end - .Lsmep_smap_alt), 0xcc
>> + .else
>> + // worst case: rex + opcode + modrm + 4-byte displacement
>> + .skip (1 + 1 + 1 + 4) - 2, 0xcc
>> + .endif
>> + .pushsection .altinstr_replacement, "ax"
>> +.Lsmep_smap_alt:
>> + mov VCPU_domain(%rbx),%rax
>> +.Lsmep_smap_alt_end:
>> + .section .altinstructions, "a"
>> + altinstruction_entry .Lsmep_smap_orig, .Lsmep_smap_alt, \
>> + X86_FEATURE_SMEP, \
>> + (.Lsmep_smap_alt_end - .Lsmep_smap_alt), \
>> + (.Lsmep_smap_alt_end - .Lsmep_smap_alt)
>> + altinstruction_entry .Lsmep_smap_orig, .Lsmep_smap_alt, \
>> + X86_FEATURE_SMAP, \
>> + (.Lsmep_smap_alt_end - .Lsmep_smap_alt), \
>> + (.Lsmep_smap_alt_end - .Lsmep_smap_alt)
>> + .popsection
>> +
>> + testb $3,UREGS_cs(%rsp)
>> + jz 0f
>> + cmpb $0,DOMAIN_is_32bit_pv(%rax)
>> + je 0f
>> + call cr4_smep_smap_restore
>> + /*
>> + * An NMI or #MC may occur between clearing CR4.SMEP and CR4.SMAP in
> Do you mean "before" when you typed "between" above?
The meaning is "between (clearing CR4.SMEP and CR4.SMAP in
compat_restore_all_guest) and (it actually returning to guest)"
Nested lists in English are a source of confusion, even to native speakers.
~Andrew
>> + * compat_restore_all_guest and it actually returning to guest
>> + * context, in which case the guest would run with the two features
>> + * enabled. The only bad that can happen from this is a kernel mode
>> + * #PF which the guest doesn't expect. Rather than trying to make the
>> + * NMI/#MC exit path honor the intended CR4 setting, simply check
>> + * whether the wrong CR4 was in use when the #PF occurred, and exit
>> + * back to the guest (which will in turn clear the two CR4 bits) to
>> + * re-execute the instruction. If we get back here, the CR4 bits
>> + * should then be found clear (unless another NMI/#MC occurred at
>> + * exactly the right time), and we'll continue processing the
>> + * exception as normal.
>> + */
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-09 10:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-04 11:08 [PATCH 0/4] x86: accommodate 32-bit PV guests with SMAP/SMEP handling Jan Beulich
2016-03-04 11:27 ` [PATCH 1/4] x86/alternatives: correct near branch check Jan Beulich
2016-03-07 15:43 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-03-07 15:56 ` Jan Beulich
2016-03-07 16:11 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-03-07 16:21 ` Jan Beulich
2016-03-08 17:33 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-03-04 11:27 ` [PATCH 2/4] x86: suppress SMAP and SMEP while running 32-bit PV guest code Jan Beulich
2016-03-07 16:59 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-03-08 7:57 ` Jan Beulich
2016-03-09 8:09 ` Wu, Feng
2016-03-09 14:09 ` Jan Beulich
2016-03-09 11:19 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-03-09 14:28 ` Jan Beulich
2016-03-09 8:09 ` Wu, Feng
2016-03-09 10:45 ` Andrew Cooper [this message]
2016-03-09 12:27 ` Wu, Feng
2016-03-09 12:33 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-03-09 12:36 ` Jan Beulich
2016-03-09 12:54 ` Wu, Feng
2016-03-09 13:35 ` Wu, Feng
2016-03-09 13:42 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-03-09 14:03 ` Jan Beulich
2016-03-09 14:07 ` Jan Beulich
2016-03-04 11:28 ` [PATCH 3/4] x86: use optimal NOPs to fill the SMAP/SMEP placeholders Jan Beulich
2016-03-07 17:43 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-03-08 8:02 ` Jan Beulich
2016-03-04 11:29 ` [PATCH 4/4] x86: use 32-bit loads for 32-bit PV guest state reload Jan Beulich
2016-03-07 17:45 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-03-10 9:44 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] x86: accommodate 32-bit PV guests with SMEP/SMAP handling Jan Beulich
2016-03-10 9:53 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] x86: suppress SMEP and SMAP while running 32-bit PV guest code Jan Beulich
2016-05-13 15:48 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-03-10 9:54 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] x86: use optimal NOPs to fill the SMEP/SMAP placeholders Jan Beulich
2016-05-13 15:49 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-03-10 9:55 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] x86: use 32-bit loads for 32-bit PV guest state reload Jan Beulich
[not found] ` <56E9A0DB02000078000DD54C@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
2016-03-17 7:50 ` [PATCH v3 0/4] x86: accommodate 32-bit PV guests with SMEP/SMAP handling Jan Beulich
2016-03-17 8:02 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] x86: move cached CR4 value to struct cpu_info Jan Beulich
2016-03-17 16:20 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-03-17 8:03 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] x86: suppress SMEP and SMAP while running 32-bit PV guest code Jan Beulich
2016-03-25 18:01 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2016-03-29 6:55 ` Jan Beulich
2016-05-13 15:58 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-03-17 8:03 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] x86: use optimal NOPs to fill the SMEP/SMAP placeholders Jan Beulich
2016-05-13 15:57 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-05-13 16:06 ` Jan Beulich
2016-05-13 16:09 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-03-17 8:04 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] x86: use 32-bit loads for 32-bit PV guest state reload Jan Beulich
2016-03-25 18:02 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2016-03-17 16:14 ` [PATCH v3 5/4] x86: reduce code size of struct cpu_info member accesses Jan Beulich
2016-03-25 18:47 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2016-03-29 6:59 ` Jan Beulich
2016-03-30 14:28 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2016-03-30 14:42 ` Jan Beulich
2016-05-13 16:11 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-05-03 13:58 ` Ping: [PATCH v3 2/4] x86: suppress SMEP and SMAP while running 32-bit PV guest code Jan Beulich
2016-05-03 14:10 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-05-03 14:25 ` Jan Beulich
2016-05-04 10:03 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-05-04 13:35 ` Jan Beulich
2016-05-04 3:07 ` Wu, Feng
2016-05-13 15:21 ` Wei Liu
2016-05-13 15:30 ` Jan Beulich
2016-05-13 15:33 ` Wei Liu
2016-05-13 17:02 ` [PATCH v3 0/4] x86: accommodate 32-bit PV guests with SMEP/SMAP handling Wei Liu
2016-05-13 17:21 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-06-21 6:19 ` Wu, Feng
2016-06-21 7:17 ` Jan Beulich
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=56DFFEE4.1020008@citrix.com \
--to=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=feng.wu@intel.com \
--cc=keir@xen.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).