Re: Should SEV-ES #VC use IST? (Re: [PATCH] Allow RDTSC and RDTSCP from userspace)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: 2020-06-23 15:52:37
Also in:
kvm, lkml
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: 2020-06-23 15:52:37
Also in:
kvm, lkml
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 04:39:26PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 23/06/2020 16:23, Peter Zijlstra wrote:quoted
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 04:59:14PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
quoted
quoted
Yes, this is a start, it doesn't cover the case where the NMI stack is in-between, so I think you need to walk down regs->sp too.That shouldn't be possible with the current code, I think.NMI; #MC; Anything which IRET but isn't fatal - #DB, or #BP from patching, #GP from *_safe(), etc; NMI Sure its a corner case, but did you hear that IST is evil?
Isn't current #MC unconditionally fatal from kernel? But yes, I was sorta aware people want that changed. And yes, NMI can recurse, mostly on #BP and #PF. Like I wrote, its broken vs #MC. But Joerg was talking about IST recursion with NMI in the middle, something like: #DB, NMI, #DB, and not already being fatal. This one in particular is ruled out by #DB itself clearing DR7 (but NMI would also do that).
P.S. did you also hear that with Rowhammer, userspace has a nonzero quantity of control over generating #MC, depending on how ECC is configured on the platform.
Yes, excellent stuff.