Thread (180 messages) 180 messages, 16 authors, 2020-06-23

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

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.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help