|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 7/9] x86: Enable Supervisor Mode Access Prevention (SMAP) for Xen
>>> On 28.04.14 at 05:17, <feng.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> @@ -1394,6 +1398,15 @@ void __init noreturn __start_xen(unsigned long mbi_p)
> bootstrap_map, cmdline) != 0)
> panic("Could not set up DOM0 guest OS");
>
> + /*
> + * Enable SMAP after constructing domain0, since there are lots of
> accesses to
> + * user pages in construct_dom0(), which is safe at the current stage.
> + */
> + if ( disable_smap )
> + setup_clear_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_SMAP);
You should not have moved this part - this should happen before APs
get brought up.
> @@ -1379,8 +1399,14 @@ void do_page_fault(struct cpu_user_regs *regs)
>
> if ( unlikely(!guest_mode(regs)) )
> {
> - pf_type = spurious_page_fault(addr, error_code);
> - BUG_ON(pf_type == smep_fault);
> + pf_type = spurious_page_fault(addr, regs);
> + if ( (pf_type == smep_fault) || (pf_type == smap_fault) )
> + {
> + console_start_sync();
> + printk("Xen %s violation\n", (pf_type == smep_fault) ? "SMEP" :
> "SMAP");
I know it's largely a matter of taste, but could I talk you into doing
printk("Xen SM%cP violation\n", (pf_type == smep_fault) ? 'E' :
'A');
instead (unless others object)?
> @@ -1406,10 +1432,12 @@ void do_page_fault(struct cpu_user_regs *regs)
>
> if ( unlikely(current->domain->arch.suppress_spurious_page_faults) )
> {
> - pf_type = spurious_page_fault(addr, error_code);
> - if ( pf_type == smep_fault )
> + pf_type = spurious_page_fault(addr, regs);
> + if ( (pf_type == smep_fault) || (pf_type == smap_fault))
> {
> - gdprintk(XENLOG_ERR, "Fatal SMEP fault\n");
> + printk(XENLOG_G_ERR "%p fatal %s fault\n",
> + current, (pf_type == smep_fault) ? "SMEP" : "SMAP");
And similarly here then?
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |