From: "Wu, Feng" <feng.wu@intel.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, "Wu, Feng" <feng.wu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86: suppress SMAP and SMEP while running 32-bit PV guest code
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 08:09:19 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E959C4978C3B6342920538CF579893F00C369EB1@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56DE93E902000078000DA3D1@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
> >> +/* This mustn't modify registers other than %rax. */
> >> +ENTRY(cr4_smep_smap_restore)
> >> + mov %cr4, %rax
> >> + test $X86_CR4_SMEP|X86_CR4_SMAP,%eax
> >> + jnz 0f
If we clear every place where we are back to 32bit pv guest,
X86_CR4_SMEP and X86_CR4_SMAP bit should be clear
in CR4, right? If that is the case, we cannot jump to 0f.
However, like what you mentioned in the comments below:
+ /*
+ * An NMI or #MC may occur between clearing CR4.SMEP and CR4.SMAP in
+ * 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.
+ */
That means, if NMI or #MC happens in the right time, the guest can be
running with SMAP/SMEP set in cr4, only in this case, we can get the '0f'.
Is my understanding correct? Thanks!
> >> + or cr4_smep_smap_mask(%rip), %rax
> >> + mov %rax, %cr4
> >> + ret
> >> +0:
> >> + and cr4_smep_smap_mask(%rip), %eax
> >> + cmp cr4_smep_smap_mask(%rip), %eax
> >> + je 1f
> >> + BUG
> >
> > What is the purpose of this bugcheck? It looks like it is catching a
> > mismatch of masked options, but I am not completely sure.
>
> This aims at detecting that some of the CR4 bits which are
> expected to be set really aren't (other than the case when all
> of the ones of interest here are clear).
The code in the 0f section consider the following case as not
a bug, do you think this can really happen?
Let's suppose smap it bit 0 and smep is bit1, then
cr4_smep_smap_mask is 01 or 10 and %eax is 11, in this case, it
means, Xen sets both smap and smep, but when guest is running,
only one feature is set. In your path, smap and smep is set/clear
at the same time, not sure this can happen.
BTW, I think it is worth adding some comments for the 0f section.
Thanks,
Feng
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-09 8:09 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 [this message]
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
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=E959C4978C3B6342920538CF579893F00C369EB1@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com \
--to=feng.wu@intel.com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.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).