Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/stackframe/32: repair 32-bit Xen PV

[Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 3:41 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Once again RPL checks have been introduced which don't account for a
> 32-bit kernel living in ring 1 when running in a PV Xen domain. The
> case in FIXUP_FRAME has been preventing boot; adjust BUG_IF_WRONG_CR3
> as well just in case.

I'm okay with the generated code, but IMO the macro is too indirect
for something that's trivial.

>
> Fixes: 3c88c692c287 ("x86/stackframe/32: Provide consistent pt_regs")
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>
> --- a/arch/x86/entry/entry_32.S
> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/entry_32.S
> @@ -48,6 +48,17 @@
>
>  #include "calling.h"
>
> +#ifndef CONFIG_XEN_PV
> +# define USER_SEGMENT_RPL_MASK SEGMENT_RPL_MASK
> +#else
> +/*
> + * When running paravirtualized on Xen the kernel runs in ring 1, and hence
> + * simple mask based tests (i.e. ones not comparing against USER_RPL) have to
> + * ignore bit 0. See also the C-level get_kernel_rpl().
> + */

How about:

/*
 * When running on Xen PV, the actual %cs register in the kernel is 1, not 0.
 * If we need to distinguish between a %cs from kernel mode and a %cs from
 * user mode, we can do test $2 instead of test $3.
 */
#define USER_SEGMENT_RPL_MASK 2

but...

> +# define USER_SEGMENT_RPL_MASK (SEGMENT_RPL_MASK & ~1)
> +#endif
> +
>         .section .entry.text, "ax"
>
>  /*
> @@ -172,7 +183,7 @@
>         ALTERNATIVE "jmp .Lend_\@", "", X86_FEATURE_PTI
>         .if \no_user_check == 0
>         /* coming from usermode? */
> -       testl   $SEGMENT_RPL_MASK, PT_CS(%esp)
> +       testl   $USER_SEGMENT_RPL_MASK, PT_CS(%esp)

Shouldn't PT_CS(%esp) be 0 if we came from the kernel?  I'm guessing
the actual bug is in whatever code put 1 in here in the first place.

In other words, I'm having trouble understanding why there is any
context in which some value would be 3 for user mode and 1 for kernel
mode.  Obviously if we're manually IRETing to kernel mode, we need to
set CS to 1, but if we're filling in our own PT_CS, we should just
write 0.

The supposedly offending commit (""x86/stackframe/32: Provide
consistent pt_regs") looks correct to me, so I suspect that the
problem is elsewhere.  Or is it intentional that Xen PV's asm
(arch/x86/xen/whatever) sticks 1 into the CS field on the stack?

Also, why are we supporting 32-bit Linux PV guests at all?  Can we
just delete this code instead?

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel