From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754473AbbKQSuE (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:50:04 -0500 Received: from mail-oi0-f53.google.com ([209.85.218.53]:35827 "EHLO mail-oi0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753106AbbKQSuB (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:50:01 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <564B3C57.5000002@oracle.com> References: <1447456706-24347-1-git-send-email-boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> <56468D24.8030801@oracle.com> <564A0371.2040104@oracle.com> <20151116195906.GB20137@pd.tnic> <20151116202232.GC20137@pd.tnic> <564A50C3.1000200@zytor.com> <564B3C57.5000002@oracle.com> From: Andy Lutomirski Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:49:40 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen/x86: Adjust stack pointer in xen_sysexit To: Boris Ostrovsky Cc: xen-devel , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , David Vrabel , Borislav Petkov , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "H. Peter Anvin" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Nov 17, 2015 6:40 AM, "Boris Ostrovsky" wrote: > > On 11/16/2015 04:55 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> >> On 11/16/15 12:22, Borislav Petkov wrote: >>> >>> Huh, so what's wrong with a jump: >>> >>> jmp 1f >>> swapgs >>> 1: >>> >> What is the point of that jump? >> >>>> If it would make you feel better, it could be X86_BUG_XENPV :-p >>> >>> That doesn't matter - I just don't want to open the flood gates on >>> pseudo feature bits. >>> >>> hpa, what do you think? >> >> Pseudo feature bits are fine, we already have plenty of them. They make >> sense as they let us reuse a lot of infrastructure. > > > > So how about something like this? And then I think we can remove usergs_sysret32 and irq_enable_sysexit pv ops completely as noone will use them (lguest doesn't set them) > Looks good to me. Does Xen have any sysexit/sysret32 equivalent to return to 32-bit user mode? If so, it could be worth trying to wire it up by patching the jz instead of the test instruction. Also, I'd prefer X86_FEATURE_XENPV. IMO "PV" means too many things to too many people. --Andy