> On Jul 12, 2018, at 6:50 PM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 07/12/2018 04:49 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: >>>> That seems like something we need to call out if so. It also means we >>>> need to update the SDM because some of the text is wrong. >>> It needs to mention the WRUSS case. >> Ugh. The documentation for this is not pretty. But, I guess this is >> not fundamentally different from access to U=1 pages when SMAP is in >> place and we've set EFLAGS.AC=1. > > I was wrong and misread the docs. We do not get X86_PF_USER set when > EFLAGS.AC=1. > > But, we *do* get X86_PF_USER (otherwise defined to be set when in ring3) > when running in ring0 with the WRUSS instruction and some other various > shadow-stack-access-related things. I'm sure folks had a good reason > for this architecture, but it is a pretty fundamentally *new* > architecture that we have to account for. I think it makes (some) sense. The USER bit is set for a page fault that was done with user privilege. So a descriptor table fault at CPL 3 has USER clear (regardless of the cause of the fault) and WRUSS has USER set. > > This new architecture is also not spelled out or accounted for in the > SDM as of yet. It's only called out here as far as I know: > https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/managed/4d/2a/control-flow-enforcement-technology-preview.pdf > > Which reminds me: Yu-cheng, do you have a link to the docs anywhere in > your set? If not, you really should. I am tempted to suggest that the whole series not be merged until there are actual docs. It’s not a fantastic precedent.-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
