Re: [ 05/48] x86_64, switch_to(): Load TLS descriptors before switching DS and ES

[Willy Tarreau]

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 03:25:33PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-05-15 at 15:38 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > Hi Ben,
> > 
> > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 01:32:20PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2015-05-15 at 10:05 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > > 2.6.32-longterm review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > > > 
> > > > ------------------
> > > > 
> > > > From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > 
> > > > commit f647d7c155f069c1a068030255c300663516420e upstream.
> > > > 
> > > > Otherwise, if buggy user code points DS or ES into the TLS
> > > > array, they would be corrupted after a context switch.
> > > > 
> > > > This also significantly improves the comments and documents some
> > > > gotchas in the code.
> > > > 
> > > > Before this patch, the both tests below failed.  With this
> > > > patch, the es test passes, although the gsbase test still fails.
> > > [...]
> > > 
> > > This depends on the changes to FPU/MMX/SSE state management that you
> > > didn't apply to 2.6.32.  Note this comment:
> > > 
> > > 	/* Must be after DS reload */
> > > 	unlazy_fpu(prev_p);
> > 
> > Are you sure you're not confusing with another one ? When running
> > estest without this patch, I get "FAIL: ES corrupted 1000/1000 times"
> > while I get "OK: ES was preserved" once applied, so it does seem to
> > do what it's intended for.
> >
> > Also I'm not seeing any reference to the comment above in the patch
> > nor around it, which leaves me confused :-/
> 
> v2.6.32.65:arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c:425:    /* Must be after DS reload */

Ah OK I missed it, thanks.

> If this comment is correct then the patch will cause a regression for
> FPU state management.  The comment was introduced by:
> 
> commit 0a5ace2ab08d45cd78d7ef0067cdcd5c812ac54f
> Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
> Date:   Thu Oct 5 18:47:22 2006 +0200
> 
>     [PATCH] x86-64: Fix FPU corruption

Indeed! Andy, is there any practical case covered by your patch that
should motivate a safe way to backport it, or can we simply drop it
for 2.6.32 ? I don't intend to backport the FPU state management
series that late in the cycle just for this!

Thanks!
Willy

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/