On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 04:20:55PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 03:42:24PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > Alright, Andy's iret optimization efforts do immediately bring a
> > followup question -- why is this not a problem with iret-based return
> > from #MC possibly interrupting NMI?
>
> Yeah, and frankly, I don't see this nesting fun at all protected against
> a #MC interrupting it at any point actually. Because once the #MC
> handler returns, it goes into paranoid_exit and that place doesn't
> account for NMIs at all, AFAICS.
>
> Which would mean:
>
> * NMI goes off
> * MCE happens, we switch to machine_check which is paranoidzeroentry
> * #MC handler is done -> paranoid_exit -> IRET
> -> boom! Or if not "boom", at least, the NMI gets forgotten.
>
> Am I missing something?
I think to get a full BOOM you need a bit more complex process, namely:
* NMI triggered
* NMI handler starts
* MCE happens
* Second NMI triggered and queued
* handler done, IRET
* Second NMI handler starts and overwrites NMI return address on stack
* Second NMI handler ends
* First NMI handler ends and goes into an infinite IRET loop, always
returning to the beginning of itself
But you do have all the ingredients.
And I don't see any other way out than not calling IRET for MCEs.
--
Vojtech Pavlik
Director SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
