From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C80EC432C3 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 18:20:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70C5220727 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 18:20:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727940AbfKNSUq (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:20:46 -0500 Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:57201 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726505AbfKNSUo (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:20:44 -0500 X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga006.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.51]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Nov 2019 10:20:43 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.68,304,1569308400"; d="scan'208";a="208198401" Received: from sjchrist-coffee.jf.intel.com (HELO linux.intel.com) ([10.54.74.41]) by orsmga006.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Nov 2019 10:20:43 -0800 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 10:20:43 -0800 From: Sean Christopherson To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Jann Horn , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , "H. Peter Anvin" , X86 ML , Andrey Ryabinin , Alexander Potapenko , Dmitry Vyukov , kasan-dev , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/traps: Print non-canonical address on #GP Message-ID: <20191114182043.GG24045@linux.intel.com> References: <20191112211002.128278-1-jannh@google.com> <20191112211002.128278-2-jannh@google.com> <20191114174630.GF24045@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 10:00:35AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 9:46 AM Sean Christopherson > wrote: > > > + /* > > > + * For the user half, check against TASK_SIZE_MAX; this way, if the > > > + * access crosses the canonical address boundary, we don't miss it. > > > + */ > > > + if (addr_ref <= TASK_SIZE_MAX) > > > > Any objection to open coding the upper bound instead of using > > TASK_SIZE_MASK to make the threshold more obvious? > > > > > + return; > > > + > > > + pr_alert("dereferencing non-canonical address 0x%016lx\n", addr_ref); > > > > Printing the raw address will confuse users in the case where the access > > straddles the lower canonical boundary. Maybe combine this with open > > coding the straddle case? With a rough heuristic to hedge a bit for > > instructions whose operand size isn't accurately reflected in opnd_bytes. > > > > if (addr_ref > __VIRTUAL_MASK) > > pr_alert("dereferencing non-canonical address 0x%016lx\n", addr_ref); > > else if ((addr_ref + insn->opnd_bytes - 1) > __VIRTUAL_MASK) > > pr_alert("straddling non-canonical boundary 0x%016lx - 0x%016lx\n", > > addr_ref, addr_ref + insn->opnd_bytes - 1); > > else if ((addr_ref + PAGE_SIZE - 1) > __VIRTUAL_MASK) > > pr_alert("potentially straddling non-canonical boundary 0x%016lx - 0x%016lx\n", > > addr_ref, addr_ref + PAGE_SIZE - 1); > > This is unnecessarily complicated, and I suspect that Jann had the > right idea but just didn't quite explain it enough. The secret here > is that TASK_SIZE_MAX is a full page below the canonical boundary > (thanks, Intel, for screwing up SYSRET), so, if we get #GP for an > address above TASK_SIZE_MAX, Ya, I followed all that. My point is that if "addr_ref + insn->opnd_bytes" straddles the boundary then it's extremely likely the #GP is due to a non-canonical access, i.e. the pr_alert() doesn't have to hedge (as much). > then it's either a #GP for a different > reason or it's a genuine non-canonical access. Heh, "canonical || !canonical" would be the options :-D > > So I think that just a comment about this would be enough. > > *However*, the printout should at least hedge a bit and say something > like "probably dereferencing non-canonical address", since there are > plenty of ways to get #GP with an operand that is nominally > non-canonical but where the actual cause of #GP is different. And I > think this code should be skipped entirely if error_code != 0. > > --Andy