[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Fix resume on x86-32 machines
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Linus Torvalds
<> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 6:22 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <> wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 10, 2017 10:58:23 PM CET Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> I'm guessing that the real issue is that 32-bit needs %fs restored early for TLS.
>> I *think* you are right.
>> Anyway, that should be easy enough to verify.
>> Pavel, can you please check if the below change works too?
> So Jarkko confirmed this works for him, but the more I look at this
> crap, the less I like it.
> Why do we save fs/ds/es/ss at all on x86-32? Don't they all have fixed
> values in the kernel, with %fs being __KERNEL_PERCPU, and the others
> being __USER_DS?
> Nothing else can possibly be valid, as far as I can tell.
> I think we actually leave the user-space percpu segment in %gs (or the
> stack canary base), so that one we should actually save/restore, but
> I'm getting the feeling that we should just reset the other segment
> registers to known values on 32-bit.
> Also, why does the 32-bit code do
> loadsegment(es, ctxt->es);
> but the 64-bit code does
> asm volatile ("movw %0, %%es" :: "r" (ctxt->es));
> And look at that confusion between MSR_GS_BASE and MSR_KERNEL_GS_BASE
> all within the 64-bit case.
> In particular, note how we reload the %gs segment in between the two -
> wouldn't that mess with the currently active gs base if %gs can be
> non-zero?
> Christ, what a mess.
> So I think that whole sequence is garbage. It has been written as some
> kind of "save and restore registers", but that's not what it really
> then does - or what it should do.
> It should make sure to restore a sane kernel state, not some random
> register state.
> And the 32-bit and 64-bit code really should strive to be at least
> _sanely_ different, not this randomly and insanely different mess.
> But yes, Rafael's patch looks like the minimal one-liner. But I think
> we should do the %gs load early too for the 32-bit stack canary case,
> kind of like we need to do %fs for percpu base.

I'll try to get to this in a day or so -- is that okay? Or should we
do some trivial fix/revert and fix it for real next time around?

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-11 19:42    [W:0.211 / U:0.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site