Re: [PATCH v19 06/25] x86/cet: Add control-protection fault handler

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

 



On 2/5/2021 5:59 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 02:55:28PM -0800, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
+DEFINE_IDTENTRY_ERRORCODE(exc_control_protection)
+{
+	static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(rs, DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_INTERVAL,
+				      DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_BURST);
+	struct task_struct *tsk;
+
+	if (!user_mode(regs)) {
+		pr_emerg("PANIC: unexpected kernel control protection fault\n");
+		die("kernel control protection fault", regs, error_code);
+		panic("Machine halted.");
+	}
+
+	cond_local_irq_enable(regs);
+
+	if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_CET))
+		WARN_ONCE(1, "Control protection fault with CET support disabled\n");
+
+	tsk = current;
+	tsk->thread.error_code = error_code;
+	tsk->thread.trap_nr = X86_TRAP_CP;
+
+	if (show_unhandled_signals && unhandled_signal(tsk, SIGSEGV) &&
+	    __ratelimit(&rs)) {

I can't find it written down anywhere why the ratelimiting is needed at
all?


The ratelimit here is only for #CP, and its rate is not counted together with other types of faults. If a task gets here, it will exit. The only condition the ratelimit will trigger is when multiple tasks hit #CP at once, which is unlikely. Are you suggesting that we do not need the ratelimit here?

Thanks!

--
Yu-cheng




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux