On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 09:58:58AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > +bool __ldt_write_fault(unsigned long address)
> > +{
> > + struct ldt_struct *ldt = current->mm->context.ldt;
> > + unsigned long start, end, entry;
> > + struct desc_struct *desc;
> > +
> > + start = (unsigned long) ldt->entries;
> > + end = start + ldt->nr_entries * LDT_ENTRY_SIZE;
> > +
> > + if (address < start || address >= end)
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + desc = (struct desc_struct *) ldt->entries;
> > + entry = (address - start) / LDT_ENTRY_SIZE;
> > + desc[entry].type |= 0x01;
>
> You have another patch that unconditionally sets the accessed bit on
> installation. What gives?
Right, initially we didn't set that unconditionally. But even when we
did do that, we've observed the CPU generating these write faults.
> Also, this patch is going to die a horrible death if IRET ever hits
> this condition. Or load gs.
Us touching the CS/SS descriptors with LAR should avoid IRET going off
the rails, I'm not familiar with the whole gs thing, but we could very
easily augment refresh_ldt_segments() I suppose.
Would you care to be a little more specific and or propose a testcase
for this situation?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
