Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <57e7b3df-5ca3-b400-d99a-a430bcc35a7a@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 May 2023 16:17:55 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/head/64: Switch to KERNEL_CS as soon as new GDT is
 installed
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>,
        Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@amd.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>
References: <6ff1f28af2829cc9aea357ebee285825f90a431f.1684340801.git.thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <6ff1f28af2829cc9aea357ebee285825f90a431f.1684340801.git.thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 5/17/23 09:26, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> However, a recent patchset that looked to avoid using the legacy
> decompressor during an EFI boot exposed this bug. At entry to startup_64,
> the CS value is that of EFI and is not mapped in the new kernel GDT. So
> when a #VC exception occurs, the CS value used by IRETQ is not valid and
> the guest boot crashes.

This confused me a bit.  Nobody merged that patchset yet, right?  You
just happened across this issue when debugging a crash in that *other* set?

> Fix this issue by moving the block that switches to the KERNEL_CS value to
> be done immediately after returning from startup_64_setup_env().
> 
> Fixes: bcce82908333 ("x86/sev: Detect/setup SEV/SME features earlier in boot")
> Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>

Any thoughts on whether we want this in stable@?

I also wonder whether we need a comment in that little chunk of code
something along the lines of:

	/*
	 * Do not add anything which might take a fault or exception.
	 * IRET does not work here.
	 */

Michael, do you think you would have spotted something like this had it
been in the code when you were patching it?