Re: [RFC PATCH 5/7] x86/mm/fault: hook up SCI verification

[Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>]

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 09:44:09AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 10:47 PM Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 09:42:23AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 12:45:52AM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > > If a system call runs in isolated context, it's accesses to kernel code and
> > > > data will be verified by SCI susbsytem.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  arch/x86/mm/fault.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > There's a distinct lack of touching do_double_fault(). It appears to me
> > > that you'll instantly trigger #DF when you #PF, because the #PF handler
> > > itself will not be able to run.
> >
> > The #PF handler is able to run. On interrupt/error entry the cr3 is
> > switched to the full kernel page tables, pretty much like PTI does for
> > user <-> kernel transitions. It's in the patch 3.
> >
> >
> 
> PeterZ meant page_fault, not do_page_fault.  In your patch, page_fault
> and some of error_entry run before that magic switchover happens.  If
> they're not in the page tables, you double-fault.

The entry code is in sci page tables, just like in user-space page tables
with PTI.
 
> And don't even try to do SCI magic in the double-fault handler.  As I
> understand it, the SDM and APM aren't kidding when they say that #DF
> is an abort, not a fault.  There is a single case in the kernel where
> we recover from #DF, and it was vetted by microcode people.
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.