MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5356CE58.1090502@zytor.com>
References: <CAObL_7EJi5+m-oDXRy4hu+-OTZ=9wZ9WEivTMsdDtccU00wfWA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140422144659.GF15882@pd.tnic>
	<CAObL_7FGs4n6zusbdwTLi5W5q2V81Sf7pOnOmHPFyv5d7jMfvA@mail.gmail.com>
	<53569467.1030809@zytor.com>
	<CAObL_7F9yxt=vXjbssYB5wjZ7HUyKcstG7KYaRWxDDK0n7_vQw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+55aFyg1n6=Lnp_qhqdGESoP3u-sv_+MbvSdT4MEutGQAJESg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAObL_7HdWs2hoNYd0gKzh6iVJr293Z9p+Dg1C6u+5GYQiDfgnA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+55aFzRf2Dhh3Eea1E74cpD9DXijUHpsXa71AURy_n6F_JKbw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAObL_7EL8P0jgnjxkngqso47eFpYXHStNkvpzxSG_xCYgnaHng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+55aFwuKTQGHzi-cFkHrkLgkS-kFptajFt4=ginxOgwDcJLrA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5356A70A.5090907@zytor.com>
	<CAObL_7GJypym8JhUmdszDTKJVuLW9wSjbbZK4AZ3Jk304GK6tQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMzpN2hpX=XHFrTKxV1hsngNX4Pmuh9FxjAqeSeQHhEBKza1DA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5356AF9F.4010301@zytor.com>
	<CAMzpN2gkCPZoAKCgXa8tNZYFCuiPd6GWg9yhTBSSA=F43WLv1A@mail.gmail.com>
	<5356BA2F.2030007@zytor.com>
	<CAMzpN2hkJXyt87ioNowYhxm7ZmSjz_qcc=AZpzFhafKGx_+tzg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5356CE58.1090502@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:08:48 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMzpN2im7kO1NvjyHsP8va7iQCXWRZO6HGgkkySW_AzpeufMWg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86-64: espfix for 64-bit mode *PROTOTYPE*
From: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Andrew Lutomirski <amluto@gmail.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@linux.intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@fastmail.fm>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@intel.com>,
        Alexandre Julliard <julliard@winehq.com>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 4:17 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> On 04/22/2014 12:55 PM, Brian Gerst wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 2:51 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
>>> On 04/22/2014 11:17 AM, Brian Gerst wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> That is the entry condition that we have to deal with.  The fact that
>>>>> the switch to the IST is unconditional is what makes ISTs hard to deal with.
>>>>
>>>> Right, that is why you switch away from the IST as soon as possible,
>>>> copying the data that is already pushed there to another stack so it
>>>> won't be overwritten by a recursive fault.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That simply will not work if you can take a #GP due to the "safe" MSR
>>> functions from NMI and #MC context, which would be my main concern.
>>
>> In that case (#2 above), you would switch to the previous %rsp (in the
>> NMI/MC stack), copy the exception frame from the IST, and continue
>> with the #GP handler.  That effectively is the same as it is today,
>> where no stack switch occurs on the #GP fault.
>>
>
> 1. You take #GP.  This causes an IST stack switch.
> 2. You immediately thereafter take an NMI.  This switches stacks again.
> 3. Now you take another #GP.  This causes another IST stack, and now you
> have clobbered your return information, and cannot resume.

You are right.  That will not work.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/