[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-kernel
Subject:    Re: [PATCH v9 12/26] x86/fpu/xstate: Use feature disable (XFD) to protect dynamic user state
From:       Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira () intel ! com>
Date:       2021-08-31 22:39:02
Message-ID: 2020841.9MqWvG71rC () tjmaciei-mobl5
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tuesday, 31 August 2021 15:15:55 PDT Len Brown wrote:
> Indeed, I believe that there is universal agreement that a synchronous
> return code
> from a system call is a far superior programming model than decoding
> the location of a failure in a system call.  (no, the IP isn't random -- it
> is always the 1st instruction in that thread to touch a TMM register).

That instruction is actually likely going to be a memory load, probably an 
LDTILECFG. So the developer will see a crashing instruction with a pointer and 
will spend time trying to figure out why that pointer was wrong, when there 
was nothing wrong with it.

That's why I suggested (and Chang implemented) a SIGILL for when #NM is 
received and the arch_prctl() wasn't previously done. The OOM condition, if 
the extra state is dynamically allocated, was meant to stay a SIGSEGV, but 
maybe should change to SIGKILL.

On the other hand, if it it's allocated at the syscall, then the kernel can 
return -ENOMEM for it (which would allow for graceful degradation) or for a 
later clone() syscall starting a new thread (which I don't expect to ever 
gracefully degrade).

> decoding the location of the failure in a *signal hander*

That's a separate problem.

We can't be sure that the portion of the userspace doing the alt-stack crash 
handler is aware of the portion using AMX. There's no way to enforce this. The 
prctl() is a good indication, but I have no clue how high the correlation will 
be.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel DPG Cloud Engineering



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]