Re: [PATCH v15 03/26] x86/fpu/xstate: Introduce CET MSR XSAVES supervisor states

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 08:21:48AM -0800, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/msr-index.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/msr-index.h
> index 972a34d93505..6f05ab2a1fa4 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/msr-index.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/msr-index.h
> @@ -922,4 +922,24 @@
>  #define MSR_VM_IGNNE                    0xc0010115
>  #define MSR_VM_HSAVE_PA                 0xc0010117
>  
> +/* Control-flow Enforcement Technology MSRs */
> +#define MSR_IA32_U_CET		0x6a0 /* user mode cet setting */
> +#define MSR_IA32_S_CET		0x6a2 /* kernel mode cet setting */
> +#define MSR_IA32_PL0_SSP	0x6a4 /* kernel shstk pointer */
> +#define MSR_IA32_PL1_SSP	0x6a5 /* ring-1 shstk pointer */
> +#define MSR_IA32_PL2_SSP	0x6a6 /* ring-2 shstk pointer */
> +#define MSR_IA32_PL3_SSP	0x6a7 /* user shstk pointer */
> +#define MSR_IA32_INT_SSP_TAB	0x6a8 /* exception shstk table */
> +
> +/* MSR_IA32_U_CET and MSR_IA32_S_CET bits */

Pls put the bit defines under the MSRs they belong to.

> +#define CET_SHSTK_EN		BIT_ULL(0)
> +#define CET_WRSS_EN		BIT_ULL(1)
> +#define CET_ENDBR_EN		BIT_ULL(2)
> +#define CET_LEG_IW_EN		BIT_ULL(3)
> +#define CET_NO_TRACK_EN		BIT_ULL(4)
> +#define CET_SUPPRESS_DISABLE	BIT_ULL(5)
> +#define CET_RESERVED		(BIT_ULL(6) | BIT_ULL(7) | BIT_ULL(8) | BIT_ULL(9))
> +#define CET_SUPPRESS		BIT_ULL(10)
> +#define CET_WAIT_ENDBR		BIT_ULL(11)

...

>  	 * Clear XSAVE features that are disabled in the normal CPUID.
>  	 */
>  	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(xsave_cpuid_features); i++) {
> -		if (!boot_cpu_has(xsave_cpuid_features[i]))
> -			xfeatures_mask_all &= ~BIT_ULL(i);
> +		if (xsave_cpuid_features[i] == X86_FEATURE_SHSTK) {
> +			/*
> +			 * X86_FEATURE_SHSTK and X86_FEATURE_IBT share
> +			 * same states, but can be enabled separately.
> +			 */
> +			if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SHSTK) &&
> +			    !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_IBT))
> +				xfeatures_mask_all &= ~BIT_ULL(i);
> +		} else {
> +			if ((xsave_cpuid_features[i] == -1) ||
			     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That is a new check. I guess it could be done first to simplify the
code:

	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(xsave_cpuid_features); i++) {
		if (xsave_cpuid_features[i] == -1) {
			xfeatures_mask_all &= ~BIT_ULL(i);
			continue;
		}

		/* the rest of the bla */

Yes?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette



[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux